|
Download CVE/results/paper_method.md from IoTProber/raw_dataset: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 1.97 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/IoTProber/raw_dataset/resolve/main/CVE/results/paper_method.md
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/IoTProber/raw_dataset/CVE/results/paper_method.md
-
curl -L -o paper_method.md https://huggingface.co/datasets/IoTProber/raw_dataset/resolve/main/CVE/results/paper_method.md
1.97 kB
| ## Statistical Method | |
| We constructed a live candidate pool by querying the Censys Platform for 11 | |
| IoT device classes and iteratively expanding underrepresented classes until | |
| the pool contained 5,800 cross-class unique public IP | |
| addresses. IoTProber identified a type label and vendor label from the | |
| 46-column multi-perspective fingerprint evidence. We retained candidates only | |
| when the Shodan host query returned `ok` and the IoTProber vendor label was not | |
| `Unknown`, then selected the first 200 eligible addresses per class (2,200 | |
| instances in total). Consequently, 100% Shodan host coverage and 100% | |
| IoTProber vendor-label availability are sampling constraints and must not be | |
| interpreted as unbiased population-level performance estimates. | |
| For every validation IP, we queried Censys and Shodan and applied a | |
| native-first mapping hierarchy. Platform-reported CVEs were used first, | |
| followed by platform-reported CPEs. Only when neither was available did we | |
| construct a type-compatible CPE from that method's own device type, vendor, | |
| product, and version observations; baseline methods never reused the | |
| IoTProber vendor label. Candidate mappings were restricted to the CISA | |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and explicit product versions were | |
| validated against affected-version ranges from CVE.org. | |
| We report pooled and per-device-class coverage on the balanced validation set. | |
| Binary proportions include Wilson 95% confidence intervals. Since all methods | |
| were evaluated on the same IPs, pairwise differences were tested using the | |
| two-sided exact McNemar test and are accompanied by absolute percentage-point | |
| differences. Platform-native CVE reports, product-level candidates, and | |
| version-confirmed mappings are reported separately. | |
| For the shared vendor metric, we report agreement between each method's device | |
| vendor and the IoTProber vendor label. Generic software component vendors such | |
| as Apache or Linux are not counted as device-vendor identifications. | |