According to Abedi, Bhaskar and Chung (2013),accessing networks and services with increased mobility and flexibility, wireless networks are a fast growing and popular technology. Some of the benefits of wireless networks include reduction of cable restrictions, formation of dynamic communication, and deploying with ease. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, and UWB are examples of short-range standards for wireless communication, which correspond IEEE 802.15.1, 802.11 a/b/g, 802.15.4, and 802.15.3. Actually, IEEE defines physical layers, and Mac address for the above-mentioned wireless protocols for a range of 10 to 100 meters of operation. Bluetooth and Network Interface
ZigBee and Bluetooth have an advantage of low power consumption and Wi-Fi utilizes low normalized energy. In addition, ZigBee and Bluetooth possess a larger transmission data and time coding efficiency attributed to the payload size.). Mac addresses are unique identifiers that are utilized for varying categories of communication networks and the largest part of the IEEE 802 technologies.
Bluetooth and ZigBee are most efficient in terms of power consumption and UWB and Wi-Fi consume less normalized energy. Furthermore, ZigBee and Bluetooth have bigger transmission time and data coding efficiency associated to the data payload size (Porter et al., 2011). MAC addresses are unique identifies and are used for various type of communication networks and most of IEEE 802 network technologies.
Currently, most of the smart-phones and other digital devices utilize Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies for communications. According to Blogg, Semler, Hingorani and Troutbeck (2010), Bluetooth technologies have been expansively used, whereby they are applied in areas such as the motor industry; for instance, there exists several capturing Bluetooth in city roads and motorways. The devices have also been applied in estimating the vehicle’s travel time. Brennan et al. (2010) argue that the ability to track Bluetooth devices is the primary motivation to their increase use. In cases involving communication of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth communication is the initial step to detect available devices in the detection zone. Wang et al. (2014) note that there exist some devices, which are created for detecting communicating devices in a zone, however, these devices possess some limiting factors such as scanning number of ID capturing in a similar period and scanning frequency. Bluetooth and Network Interface
Abedi, Bhaskar and Chung (2013) define a Bluetooth as technology standard, which is wireless, for exchanging data over considerable short distances (utilizing short-wavelength radio transmissions that ranges from 2400-2480 MHz in the ISM band) from mobile and fixed devices, creating PANs (personal Area Networks) with huge levels of security. Phan and Mingard (2012)note that a master Bluetooth device has a capability of communicating with up to seven devices in a piconet (an ad-lib network of computers utilizing Bluetooth technology); however, not every device can achieve the maximum.
In such a case (network);by agreement devices can switch roles, whereby a master can become a slave and vice versa. For instance, whena headset initiates a connection to a phone; hence, starts as a master because of initiating the connection. However, the device may subsequently assume slave tasks by preference. Martin, Grupen, Muñoz and Srivastava (2014) also define a Bluetooth as a Wireless’s PAN industrial standard, that is designed for low consumption of power and short distance operations among embedded and mobile devices. Blendin et al. (2014) explain that since RF type of communication protocol is involved, the line of sight for the communicating devices is never required. Further, discovering surrounding Bluetooth services and devices is simplified, compared to the Ethernet-based Wi-Fi networks, by reducing connections’ establishment process to a streamlined paired device setup(Cabero et al. 2016). Bluetooth and Network Interface
Wright and Cache (2015) explains that a Bluetooth enhances data exchanges and connection management among devices within close proximity and requiring low bandwidth data links, with techniques such as Bluetooth tracking being used for gathering mobile objects positions. In addition, information exchange between Bluetooth terminals is possible and the access point can offer an interface to a mobile network. Therefore, Cabero et al. (2014) also note that Bluetooth tracking possesses a competitive advantage compared to other detection mechanisms like IR detectors and surveillance cameras, whereby, valuable domain insights can be acquired through analysis of such data. Therefore, Chilipirea, Petre, Dobre and van Steen (2016) also note that the possibility of uniquely identifying every Bluetooth device using its MAC address, the technology (Bluetooth) enhances the level of interaction from the conventional face-to-face interactions, whereby, online social networking has added the capability of meeting people and establishing a friendship.
A Media Access Control (MAC) address is an identifier, which is unique and assigned to network interfaces to enable communications on the physical part of the network. Brennan et al. (2010) indicate that MAC addresses are applicable to numerous technologies including the IEEE 802 network protocols such as Ethernet. In the OSI reference model, MAC addresses are utilized in the Media Access Control protocol sub layer. The NIC (Network Interface Card) manufacturer assigns the devices a MAC address, whereby, the unique identifier is stored in the ROM (Read Only Memory) or any other firmware.
The address is referred to as the burned-in address, if assigned by the manufacturer, and encodes the registered number of such manufacturer. MAC address can also be referred to as EHA, (Ethernet Hardware Address), physical or hardware address. In a network node, there may exist multiple NICs; hence, will have a MAC address of every NIC, whereby a Bluetooth can be utilized to track absence or presence of a person within a specific block.
According to Vanhoef et al. (2016) Wi-Fi technology is the primary solution for medium range communications, which is embedded in smart objects. Specifically, a big number of smart-phones have a Wi-Fi network interface, which, enhance a cheapest and fastest internet access compared to GSM technologies. Currently, Wi-Fi features strong authentication/encryption techniques that ensure data is securely transmitted via a wireless channel. However, recent studies indicate that Devices with Wi-Fi capabilities are a threat to the owner’s privacy. For example, previously accessed network names can be found unencrypted in management frames, whereby they can be utilized to access private information of the device owners like social links.
Additionally, in cases where the payload of a Wi-Fi frame can be encrypted, the header of such devices is transmitted in clear. Therefore, the device’s MAC address can be established and utilized to identify the unique owner of the device. According to Chilipirea, Petre, Dobre and van Steen (2016), Wi-Fi emission is not limited to the time, which the device is connected to a network. Wang et al. (2014) also note that due to the enabled of the active mode of service discovery in a big number of devices, Wi-Fi interfaces periodically broadcast frames having their MAC address. Therefore, a device having its Wi-Fi turned on, works as a real wireless beacon by periodically advertising a unique identifier in clear (Casetti et al, 2015). Ni, Zhang and Souryal (2011) insistthat the wireless beacon (For instance, smart phones with Wi-Fi turned on) enhance radio frequency tracking. Regarding the RF tracking technique, some hackers and researchers have began to demonstrate systems of that kind to increase privacy awareness or to gather mobility data-sets. Bluetooth and Network Interface
Yassin, and Rachid (2015) note that besides the scientific demonstration and works, RF-tracking technique has been widely applied in commercial application. For instance, RF tracking is widely utilized in traffic monitoring application, whereby, the technology gives information; for instance, point-to-point traffic intensity and travel time. Radio-Frequency tracking is utilized in monitoring people activities in shopping centers and retail stores. Yassin and Rachid (2015)indicatethat RF-tracking systems gather information about clients’ flows and their habits of shopping Guo, Yu, Zhou and Zhang, (2014), also note that since radio frequency enable tracking of individuals utilizing on a unique identifier, the link to an actual identity is directly unavailable. Several technique of accessing the actual owner exist, whereby, they are in two categories, Whereby, one of the techniques focus of a specific target and the other focus on a Wi-Fi channel while following a target in a public space then identify the MAC address of the target through analysis of the crowd.
One the techniques that target a unique device in a network are the Wi-Fi replay attack that impersonates the network that the target has previously connected to in order to establish its MAC address. Stalker attack is another approach for identifying a target by focusing on a public network and later scanning for the MAC address of such a device.
According to Karr and Dupray (2015),techniques for monitoring the location of target via network or device based mechanisms, whereby, device based techniques use a software that logs and reports the location of a device utilizing Wi-Fi or GPS positioning data. On the other hand, networks based techniques locate a device by conducting calculations on to and from a device radio signals. After establishing the location of a device, the coordinates of the location are transferred to a computer or a mobile interface, which can present visualizations of the past, current, and predicted locations, including other features such as paired satellite proximity and imagery alerts, and fenced tracking. location monitoring is conducted without the consent of the target and is a very effective tool for establishing deviations from routine, daily activities and interpersonal interactions. Bluetooth and Network Interface
188.8.131.52. A Devices Based Approach
Some of the existing mobile devices detection tools include the Hinton Abis probe that establishes the location of a mobile phone by monitoring its signal links with different base stations utilizing the Abis signal. The device provides the Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications to identify the distance of a device from three base stations that it will be communicating with. Privacy International (n.d.) notes that the tool can enhance location-based advertising but critics to the technology argue that it is a mechanism for converting a mobile phone into a location tracking device or system.
Nashiyama and Kato (2014) Hinton Abis Probe device is based on the possibility of identifying the distance of a mobile device from a base station, whereby the strength of a signal on a device correspond to the approximated distance to a base station tower that is most near to it. In a similar manner, the base station of a subsystem, which is a network of towers that are interconnected, estimates and logs the location of a device using multilateration technique. Karr and Dupray (2015) note that mobile phones keep sending signals to a subsystem; hence, maintain a connection with the network. The nearest base station tower collects the signal travelling at the speed of light with slightly varying times. Utilizing the locations of the towers that are known and the difference of time between each tower that receives the signal; identifying the location of the device can be done within a certain range of accuracy.
According to Privacy International (n.d )the accuracy of the identifying devices improves as the number of base stations increases within the location of the mobile device, which is normally the case in the urban centers. Every time a device performs an action such as using data, sending a message, or making a call, and the device makes periodic movement within the network, location data is logged. Therefore, anybody with the access of a mobile phone location data can identify the location of the user utilizing unique identifiers. Bluetooth and Network Interface
According to Nashiyama and Kato (2014) the concept above can be used to geographically locate or track targets, whereby a blind call is made to such a device ensure that the owner does not realize that the call was made, since it does not make the call vibrate or ring. However, the location of the device can be tracked, irrespective of the movements within the network, with a one-meter accuracy.
Yassin and Rachid (2015) explain that there exist two unique numbers which identify mobile devices that the IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) and IMEI (International Mobile Station Equipment Identity). IMEI is attached to the mobile device and is unique for every device, while the IMSI is SIM card based. The IMEI and the IMSI are communicated to the network provider, whereby some technologies can be utilized to monitor the movements corresponding to both of the numbers, to identify suspicious activities such swapping of SIM cards.
Karr and Dupray (2015) note that technologies for monitoring device locations are mostly packaged as an all in one solution, which utilizes numerous monitoring techniques, whereby, the default settings on the largest number of smartphones allow simultaneous tracking of the device by these strategies; hence, significantly improve the location accuracy. Nashiyama and Kato (2014) note that even with Wi-Fis, GPS, and other applications, which can establish the location of a device, disabled, tracking is still possible since the device is continuously communicating with the network. Yassin and Rachid (2015) indicate that the only solution to prevent tracking is by ensuring that there exist no signal transmissions by switching off the device and ensuring that malware that make phones appear shutoff are not present, or utilizing a Faraday case cage. However, Wright, and Cache (2015) argues that the current advances in mobile technology, renders the techniques impossible; hence, the only techniques to prevent tracking legal and policy means. Bluetooth and Network Interface
According to Privacy International (n.d.), Wi-Fi positioning is also a technique for identifying a device location, the method utilizes information that access point broadcasts; for instance, wireless routers. Every wireless access point possesses a unique identifier that is known as the Media Access Control Address. Schauer, Werner and Marcus (2014) indicate that the commercial databases compile MAC addresses including their SSID (Service Set Identifiers), which is a string made up of 32 characters that identify the access point, and locations. Further, devices that are Wi-Fi enabled perform a registration of every surrounding SSID, including the strength of their signals (Vanhoef et al. 2016,). Establishing the device location is done by conducting a comparison of the existing SSID data to the MAC address database.
After the collection of the location data via a device or a network based technique, such data is sent a software platform, which can conduct analysis. Ficco, Palmieri and Castiglione (2014) explain that the software can generate a report on the daily trends of commuting, predicted travels, and areas of interest, of the target based on the tracking record. The location of the target is always maintained; hence, ensuring that investigators can access all areas visited for two years. In addition, a ‘geo-fence’, which is a virtual border can be created whereby every a notification is sent whenever the target crosses the border. In a similar manner, sending of notifications is possible whenever, two targets meet. Bluetooth and Network Interface
The primary objective for of standard pairing is to enhance two Bluetooth devices to create a symmetric initialization to authenticate each other and create a link key. The link key, which is created in the process of standard pairing, is derived utilizing the initializing key. A number of ways are specified through which a link key can be generated, whereby on of the device’s unit key can be utilized as the key link, whereby it is sent to the other devices encrypted by the initialization key. Alternatively, both of the devices can create stochastic random numbers and exchange the numbers, whereby, the initializing key encrypts them. After exchange of the random numbers, they are utilized to generate the key for the link. According to Schauer, Werner and Marcus (2014), in some scenarios occurring in the latest version of the specification the key for the link is created before the authentication process is performed, while in others the key link is generated after the process of authentication both devices is done utilizing the initializing key. Bluetooth and Network Interface
According to Chang and Shmatikov (2007),both of the technique suffer a similar drawback, that is, attackers can impersonate a Bluetooth device, that is, enhanced by a possibility of an offline guessing attack exploiting the low-entropy secret, which is used to create the initializing key.Communication between two Bluetooth devices involves a low-entropysecret that Fis supposed to memorable to human beings and is normally a four digit PIN. For instance, if, devices A and B are communicating; hence, sharing their addresses, then communication begins with the initializing device generating a stochastic nonceand sending it to the non-initializing device. For instance, assuming A is the initializing device and B the ‘non-initializing’ device, then A starts the protocol by generating the nonce and sending it to B. A and B then proceed to generate the initializing key, which is a function of the nonce,Bluetooth address for device A, and the PIN. Both of the devices then proceed to execute a two-way challenge to authenticate each other, whereby A begins the process, whereby, B sends a random value to A, which upon receiving it, computes a response in form of a function of the initializing key, and sends to B for verification. Finally, after B verifies the Response from A, the process is repeated in a reversed role.
According to Chang and Shmatikov (2007), the drawback of the technique is that if someone gets the PIN, then access to both of the devices is possible, thereby, violating the authentication and secrecy of both devices. The violation is possible because such an attacker or a person by guessing the PIN will have access to all the parameter required to generate the initialization key. As indicated previously also, the PIN is a low-entropy secret; hence, be easily guessed by attackers, thereby, making the mode of communication insecure. In addition, impersonating a device only requires the knowledge of the initializing key and the Bluetooth public address. Phan and Mingard(2012) insist that although, latest techniques such as simple pairing mechanism that do not utilize the low-entropy secrets, or any form of secrets in the authentication can assist in eliminating the problem, there exist a big number of manufacturers using the standard pairing techniques; hence, a large number of devices using the risky mechanism. Bluetooth and Network Interface
Crowd scanning embedded devices is a technique for identifying the identity of a device owner in a public network. One such technique is the stalker approach mentioned above, which according to Mathieu (2013) focuses on a public network then scans the network to establish the owner of a certain MAC address. Identifying a device associated to particular individual, the typical solution is isolating the person, whereby the distance between the monitorer and the target is small compared to the distance between the monitoring and the rest of the network user. However, Mathieu (2013) notes that the technique can raise suspicion; thereby, compromising the requirement of stealthiness in such operations. Therefore, an approach involving a group of intersection attack, which involves considering a number of distinct sets of individuals and the study of their intersection, whereby, the individuals’ intersection is supposed to match the identifiers of the collected devices. Specifically, when the case where intersection is reduced to a single element, direct deduction of the target’s identifier is achievable. However, Blogg, Semler, Hingorani and Troutbeck (2010) note that a clear isolation and identification of a set of individuals can be problematic in practice especially due to the changing nature of a set of individuals in social places covered by the monitorer. Therefore, the only means of maintaininga person in the monitored area, with the rest of the group changing with time, is by stalking.
One of the challenges associated with scanning embedded devices to identify a particular device is that addresses such as MAC address might not lead to the targeted device due to varying reasons. According to Piyare and Tazil (2011), MAC addresses may not always lead to the targeted device because in some instances, either erroneously or intentionally, Manufacturers of devices allocate a single address to more than one device. In such a case, using MAC address that is allocated to several devices might lead to a device, which is not the desired one.
Litomisky (2011) also notes that there exist technologies such as MAC spoofing, which can be used to change the MAC address assigned by the manufacturer of a networked device or a network interface. Although the MAC address is hard-coded on the hardware of a device, MAC spoofing can be used make the operating system read a wrong address, in most cases which determined by the user. Bluetooth and Network Interface
Litomisky (2011) also indicates that some manufacturers duplicate MAC addresses on different cards and ship them to different parts of USA to avoid chances of those devices existing in a similar network. In case such devices appear in a similar local area network, a problem is experienced in in communication due to the high number of collisions. However, such devices that have similar MAC address if separated by one or more routers; communication will happen properly as the devices cannot identify each other. Identifying a particular device in such, a scenario can be cumbersome and sometime may be impossible.
According to Mathieu (2013); the dynamic nature of social places where the monitoring can happen is also a huge challenge to public scanning, whereby in practice a set of individuals keep changing in such settings. The only technique of ensuring that a target remains in the monitored section is by stalking the person, whereby the monitorer follows the target in public. However, as noted earlier. The technique may raise suspicion; hence, affecting the stealthiness of the operation. The technique to minimize suspicion is by ensuring that the distance between the target and the monitoring is not too close for the target to realize and not too far for the individual to the move out of the monitored area.
According to Davidson (2016), the ability to compromise communication authentication and secrecy of two devices in a network is another drawback to identification of devices owners’ details using the crowd scanning technique. For instance, due to low-entropy secrets used in communication of Bluetooth devices, an attacker can easily guess the pin and gain access to all the parameters, such as the device address, sufficient to generate the initialization key; hence, can lead to Bluetooth impersonification. In such a scenario, the secrecy and authentication of both of the communicating devices is compromised (Farb et al. 2015). Bluetooth and Network Interface
However, Abedi, Bhaskar and Chung (2013)note that the challenge is both a weakness and a strength to the crowd scanning mechanism, whereby, the ability to gain access to communication devices enables monitorers to track such devices and conduct the process of identifying the target through access of the devices address and identify malicious activities as well. The possibility can be a drawback due to the possibility of other attackers tracking activities in such networks; hence, might detect the activities of the monitorerand can create inexistent communication links, which might be misleading to the monitorer.
The legal, policy, and ethics issue is also another challenge to monitoring, whereby in many countries and within various organizations including manufacturers, tracking is unacceptable. According to citron (2015), in some countries, tracking can only be done by particular security personnel and must be anchored in the law, while in other countries the law is unclear about tracking. Since tracking also reveals information, which might be in some cases sensitive, about other innocent people, who are not targeted by the monitoring, the activities raise many ethical concerns. Bluetooth and Network Interface
According to Mathieu (2013), one of the benefits of crowd, scanning to identify the addresses of embedded devices is the ability to minimize the target suspicion; hence, increase stealthiness of the process. Identification the target is conducted by stalking the target due to the dynamic nature of network sets in social places. In this case, the monitorer stalks the target by following it, by maintaining a close distance to ensure that the individual does not get out of the monitored spaces and ensuring that the distance is not too close for the target to suspect of the ongoing activity.
Crowd scanning also increases the chances of identifying the address of a target by targeting a group of devices involving a comparably high number of communications than targeting an individual. Most probably, these communications generate sufficient information to reveal the identity of the owner of the targeted device. With such kind of information, the monitorer can identify suspicious activities in a network due to the consideration of the network. Bluetooth and Network Interface
According to Davidson (2016), users can use software to alter the IMEI code; hence, make identification of a particular difficult or in some cases impossible due to the ability of finding devices sharing a similar IMEI code in the same network. In such cases, crowd-scanning techniques offer an alternative to the identification of such devices since they do not involve the codes rather they use the MAC addresses and the Wi-Fi. However, cheng et al. (2017) notes that the crowd scanning techniques are also affected by cases of MAC address tampering hence are used just as an alternative when the targeting methods fail.
Yassin, and Rachid (2015) also insist that crowd scanning techniques are cheaper and simple to execute compared to targeting methods due to the considerable small monitoring area compared to some of the device targeting mechanisms, which involve large areas of a network and complicated calculations. Cheng et al. (2017) explains that cloud scanning techniques use small monitoring areas of networks social places and uses MAC addresses and Wi-Fi to identify devices in such connections, while some targeting mechanisms involveat least three base stations and complicated calculations to identify the distance of the device; hence, the owner.
Finally, according to Joh and Ryoo (2015),crowd scanning is preferred to targeting techniques due to the latter relying on other technologies such as GSM to establish the location of device. Therefore, such techniques rely on the accuracy of those devices to identify the location of a device. Bluetooth and Network Interface
A research by IDG and Lookout revealed that about 50 percent victims of phone theft would part with five hundred dollar to recover their devices (FCC, 2015). In addition, a third of such victims would pay a thousand dollars to get back their devices. Further sixty-eight percent of the poll participants indicated that they would risk some sought of danger to have their handset back. According to most of the participants, what is more valuable is not the device, but rather the data in the phones, which includes applications, videos, information, and music among others.
Lookout and IDG (2013)note that some smartphones are increasingly attractive to thieves, whereby, in 2013, about three million phones were stolen in the US. According to consumer insights, since 2011, smartphones theft has been on the rise, whereby in Los Angeles, a 26 percent increase was registered. In addition, in 2013, smartphone robberies increased by twenty-three percent in San Francisco, while an eighteen percent of grand larcenies in New York involved apple products. Bluetooth and Network Interface
The literature review shows that, various techniques exist for approximating the location of devices in a network. Some of the techniques are device based, while others are hybrid techniques involving elements of the device and the network. One of the device oriented Hinton Abis probe technique,which utilizes signals form the device plus the nearest base station to calculate the distance of from the base station. Some of these techniques can be used to detect and track devices in a network; however, they may be complex, costly, and sometime in efficient due to relying on other technologies and involving considerable larger network zones.
With smartphone theft cases increasing day by day,alternative techniques are required to identify such devices, easily, and involving considerable costs. Such techniques include targeting and crowd scanning Bluetooth and MAC addresses in a network to establish information about the target. Targeting approaches have a disadvantage of creating suspicion to the target; hence, crowd-scanning techniques are the best option to help resolve the stolen smartphone issue. However, crowd-scanning technology possesses several challenges, which need more study to ensure an efficient stolen smart identification technique. Bluetooth and Network Interface
Abedi, N., Bhaskar, A. and Chung, E 2013, ‘Bluetooth and Wi-Fi MAC address based crowd data collection and monitoring: benefits, challenges and enhancement’.http://eprints.qut.edu.au/71808/
Al-Taee, M.A., Jaradat, N.A. and Ali, D.M.A., 2011, December. Mobile phone-based health data acquisition system using Bluetooth technology. In Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT), 2011 IEEE Jordan Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Blendin, J., Rückert, J., Leymann, N., Schyguda, G. and Hausheer, D., 2014, September. Position paper: Software-defined network service chaining. In Software Defined Networks (EWSDN), 2014 Third European Workshop on (pp. 109-114). IEEE.
Blogg, M., Semler, C., Hingorani, M. and Troutbeck, R 2010, ‘Travel time and origin-destination data collection using Bluetooth MAC address readers’, Australasian transport research forum (Vol. 36).http://atrf.info/papers/2010/2010_blogg_semler_hingorani_troutbeck.pdf
Brennan Jr, T.M., Ernst, J.M., Day, C.M., Bullock, D.M., Krogmeier, J.V. and Martchouk, M 2010, ‘Influence of vertical sensor placement on data collection efficiency from bluetooth MAC address collection devices’, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 136(12), pp.1104-1109.http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000178
Cabero, J.M., Molina, V., Urteaga, I., Liberal, F. and Martín, J.L 2014,‘Acquisition of human traces with Bluetooth technology: Challenges and proposals. Ad Hoc Networks, 12, pp.2-16.
Casetti, C., Chiasserini, C.F., Pelle, L.C., Del Valle, C., Duan, Y. and Giaccone, P., 2015, June. Content-centric routing in Wi-Fi direct multi-group networks. In World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), 2015 IEEE 16th International Symposium on a (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
Cheng, L., Niu, J., Kong, L., Luo, C., Gu, Y., He, W. and Das, S.K., 2017. Compressive sensing based data quality improvement for crowd-sensing applications. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 77, pp.123-134.
Cheng, N., 2016. Investigating Privacy Leakage in Mobile Wireless Networks (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis).
Chilipirea, C., Petre, A.C., Dobre, C. and van Steen, M., 2016, June. Presumably simple: monitoring crowds using WiFi. In Mobile Data Management (MDM), 2016 17th IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 220-225). IEEE.
Chung, K., Kim, J.C. and Park, R.C., 2016. Knowledge-based health service considering user convenience using hybrid Wi-Fi P2P. Information Technology and Management, 17(1), pp.67-80.
Citron, D.K 2015, Spying Inc. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 72, p.1243.http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/waslee72&div=29&id=&page=
Davidson, C.M., Target Brands, Inc., 2016. Multi-location wireless device tracking.
Farb, M., Burman, M., Chandok, G.S., McCune, J. and Perrig, A 2012, Safeslinger: An easy-to-use and secure approach for human trust establishment (No. Cmu-Cylab-11-021), Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh Pa Cylab.http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA579928
FCC 2013, Phone Theft in America: Breaking down the Phone Theft Epidermic. Retrieved from https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/events/Lookout-phone-theft-in-america.pdf
Guo, B., Yu, Z., Zhou, X. and Zhang, D., 2014, March. From participatory sensing to mobile crowd sensing. In Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 593-598). IEEE.
Higuchi, T., Martin, P., Chakraborty, S. and Srivastava, M., 2015, September. AnonyCast: privacy-preserving location distribution for anonymous crowd tracking systems. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 1119-1130). ACM. Bluetooth and Network Interface
Joh, H. and Ryoo, I., 2015. A hybrid Wi-Fi P2P with bluetooth low energy for optimizing smart device’s communication property. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 8(4), pp.567-577.
Karr, C.L. and Dupray, D.J., Tracbeam, Llc, 2015, System and method for hybriding wireless location techniques, 9,060,341.
Kwiecień, A., Maćkowski, M., Kojder, M. and Manczyk, M., 2015, June. Reliability of bluetooth smart technology for indoor localization system. In International Conference on Computer Networks (pp. 444-454). Springer International Publishing.
Litomisky, K 2011, ‘MAC Address Spoofing: a Threat Assessment Approach’.http://alumni.cs.ucr.edu/~klitois/files/mac_address_spoofing.pdf
Lookout and IDG 2013, ‘Source: Lookout and IDG Research’, Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/LookoutInc/phone-theft-in-america/6-Source_Lookout_and_IDG_Research
Martin, P., Ho, B.J., Grupen, N., Muñoz, S. and Srivastava, M., 2014, November. An iBeacon primer for indoor localization: demo abstract. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Embedded Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings (pp. 190-191). ACM.
Mathieu Cunche 2013, Nov. I know your MAC Address: Targeted tracking of individual using Wi-Fi. International Symposium on Research in Grey-Hat Hacking – GreHack.
Ni, L.M., Zhang, D. and Souryal, M.R 2011, ‘RFID-based localization and tracking technologies’, IEEE Wireless Communications, 18(2).
Nishiyama, H., Ito, M. and Kato, N., 2014. Relay-by-smartphone: realizing multihop device-to-device communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(4), pp.56-65.
Phan, R.C.W. and Mingard, P., 2012, ‘Analyzing the secure simple pairing in Bluetooth v4. 0’, Wireless Personal Communications, 64(4), pp.719-737.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11277-010-0215-1?LI=true
Piyare, R. and Tazil, M 2011, Bluetooth based home automation system using cell phone. In Consumer Electronics (ISCE), 2011 IEEE 15th International Symposium on (pp. 192-195). IEEE.
Rouveyrol, P., Raveneau, P. and Cunche, M., 2015, June. Large scale Wi-Fi tracking using a botnet of wireless routers. In SAT 2015-Workshop on Surveillance & Technology.
Schauer, L., Werner, M. and Marcus, P 2014, December. Estimating crowd densities and pedestrian flows using wi-fi and bluetooth. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services (pp. 171-177). ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering).
Stojmenovic, I., 2014,‘Machine-to-machine communications with in-network data aggregation, processing, and actuation for large-scale cyber-physical systems’, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(2), pp.122-128.
Tuncer, S. and Tuncer, T., 2015, September. Indoor localization with bluetooth technology using artificial neural networks. In Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES), 2015 IEEE 19th International Conference on (pp. 213-217). IEEE.
Vanhoef, M., Matte, C., Cunche, M., Cardoso, L.S. and Piessens, F., 2016, May. Why MAC Address Randomization is not Enough: An Analysis of Wi-Fi Network Discovery Mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 413-424). ACM.
Vergara-Laurens, I.J., Mendez, D. and Labrador, M.A., 2014, March. Privacy, quality of information, and energy consumption in participatory sensing systems. In Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 199-207). IEEE.
Wang, Y., Liu, J., Chen, Y., Gruteser, M., Yang, J. and Liu, H 2014, September. E-eyes: device-free location-oriented activity identification using fine-grained wifi signatures. In Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking (pp. 617-628). ACM.
Wright, J. and Cache, J 2015, Hacking exposed wireless: wireless security secrets & solutions. McGraw-Hill Education Group.http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2825917
Yassin, M. and Rachid, E., 2015, ‘February. A survey of positioning techniques and location based services in wireless networks’, In Signal Processing, Informatics, Communication and Energy Systems (SPICES), 2015 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-5), IEEE.
Porter, J. D., Kim, D. S., Magana, M. E., Poocharoen, P., & Arriaga, C. A. G. (2011), ‘Antenna characterization for Bluetooth-based travel time data collection’,Paper presented at the TRB 90th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD.
Privacy International. (n.d.),Phone Monitoring. Retrieved from https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/76
Chang, R. and Shmatikov, V., 2007. Formal analysis of authentication in bluetooth device pairing. Foundations of Computer Security and Automated Reasoning for Security Protocol Analysis, p.45.