# A Review of Performance, Energy and Privacy of Intrusion Detection Systems for IoT
## 6 Analysis of Current IDS Approaches
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Paper** & **Visibility** & **Time** & **Detection Engine** & **Architecture** & **Performance Overhead** & **Attack Types** & **Detection Performance** & **Scalability** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [20] & Host & Realtime & Hybrid & Distributed & Not available & & Masquerading & Accuracy: 94.25\%, & Limited \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Host & Offline & Specification & Distributed & Defined as High, Medium and Low & & Reall 85.05\%, & & Ramping between 79\% and \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Host & Offline & Specification & Distributed & Computational Costs & Multiple IoT attacks & 100\% for different modules & Yes \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Hybrid & Collaborative & CPU usage: 0.19\%, RAM usage & ICMP Flooding, SMUR & & Detection Rate: 91\%, & Yes \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Realtime & Specification & Distributed & Latency: 412 us, power & Buffer overflow, probing, & & Not available & Yes \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Signature & Distributed & No available & DoS & Accuracy:100\% & Limited \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Combined & Signature & Distributed & CPU usage: 0.07\%, for 0 Mb/s, & IP Speeding & Not available & Limited \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Centralised & CPU usage: 0.0\% & U2R, R2I, DoS, Probe & Accuracy: 95.85\%, Detection & No \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Realtime & Specification & Centralised & CPU usage: 48\%, RAM usage: & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Realtime & Specification & Centralised & CPU usage: 48\%, RAM usage: & & Generic & Not available & No \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Distributed & No available & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Hybrid & Centralised & Not available & Probing and DoS & Detection Accuracy = 98.4\% & No \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Distributed & Not available & Neighbouring node & Net available & Yes \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Specification & Distributed & Not available & Signature mismaching & Not available & Yes \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Distributed & Not available & DoS, U2R, R2I, 21\%, 21\%, 20\%, 23\%, & Yes \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Centralised & Not available & U2R and R2I, & Detection accuracy: 81.97\%, & No \\ [PERSON]. et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Distributed & Not available & Worm propagation, & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Distributed & Not available & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Game theory & Distributed & 300 nodes, Energy consumption: & Not available & Detection accuracy: avg. & Yes \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Anomaly & Not available & Energy consumption: 8.48 mJ & Net available & Not available \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Network & Offline & Hybrid & Distributed & Efficiency: 2 s, energy consumption: approx 3000 m for 300 nodes & DoS & Detection accuracy 92\%, for & Yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparative analysis of existing IDS approaches for IoT. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l} \hline