The rapid proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices has significantly increased the attack surface for large-scale botnet operations. While previous research, including detailed analyses using Cowrie and IoTPOT frameworks, has studied IoT botnet behavior, these studies often rely on retrospective datasets, isolated protocol analyses, or hard-to-replicate setups. This paper addresses that gap with two main contributions: a structured review of ten influential IoT security studies from the USENIX Security Symposium and a confirmatory empirical experiment deploying Cowrie and IoTPOT honeypots simultaneously on a Microsoft Azure cloud-based virtual machine. Unlike earlier studies that focus on single protocols or large-scale environments, this work acts as a validation study, confirming well-known IoT botnet behaviors, including credential brute-force attacks, Mirai-style commands, and Telnet dominance, using real-time attack data collected from a reproducible, affordable cloud environment that simulates known IoT vulnerabilities (such as CVE-2016-10401, CVE-2017-17215, and CVE-2014-9222). Rather than revealing new attack methods, this study explicitly verifies the persistence of behaviors first documented almost ten years ago. The data indicates that attackers continue to exploit basic authentication flaws and reuse long-standing command sequences, confirming that core IoT vulnerabilities remain prevalent despite a decade of security research. It also highlights the ongoing gap between research progress and industry implementation. The analysis situates these findings within the broader evolution of IoT botnets, from early centralized command-and-control structures like Mirai to more resilient peer-to-peer networks that use anonymized channels and target high-wattage devices for power-grid manipulation. This study shows that small, cloud-based honeypots are valuable for continuous threat monitoring, model validation, and security assessments, providing a practical, reproducible approach for ongoing IoT security research.
Banoth et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: