# Efficient and Secured Mechanisms for Data Link in IoT WSNs: A Literature Review
## 9 WSN Security Protocols and Their Issues  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sr No** & **Issue** & **Limitation** & **Required Research Development** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{6.} & \multirow{6}{*}{Deployment [54, 55, 56]} & \multirow{6}{*}{Node organization Data security Deployment strategy} & \multirow{6}{*}{Sensor hubs sent in such situations are incredibly dense; network blockage can occur due to multiple simultaneous transmission efforts. Sensor hubs configured in this case are insufficient or insufficiently numerous, resulting in a low information yield or a lack of data measurement. The property of self-setup is necessary if hubs are distributed randomly. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{7.} & \multirow{2}{*}{Robustness and fault tolerance} & Defective sensor Sensor failure & \multirow{2}{*}{Sensor networks are vulnerable to power outages and faulty sensors as a result of any attack or change in environmental conditions.} \\  & [57, 58] & Attack & & \\  & & Network failure & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{8.} & \multirow{2}{*}{Privacy and data confidentiality} & Spoofing & The IoT device should determine if the user or device has been authorized access to the system. Data access should be limited by granting or denying permission based on a set of rules. \\  & [59, 60] & & Modification of data Sniffing & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{9.} & \multirow{2}{*}{Acquisition and transmission of data [60]} & One-time-pad OTP encryption Wireless transmission security & There is a need to develop a mechanism akin to OTP that monitors end-to-end communication links to identify vulnerabilities in applications and DBMS. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{10.} & \multirow{2}{*}{Authorization [61, 62]} & DNS attack & Passwords must be updated regularly, and computers should never be left unattended. Similarly, both the sender and the receiver need to perform authentication. \\  & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Protocol** & **Purpose** & **Effective against Attacks** & **Characteristics** & **Issues** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{TINYSEC [59]} & To solve the inadequacy of existing systems, the TinySec architecture is used. TinySec is lightweight, reliable, and secure, ensuring message integrity, confidentiality, and access control. TinySec decreases energy consumption, bandwidth, and latency by more than 10\%. & \multirow{6}{*}{Gray hole, black hole, worm hole} & \multirow{6}{*}{Authentication Confidentiality} & TinySec uses a single network-wide key such that any node in the network can impersonate any other node. It makes no effort to defend against various threats such as replay attacks, hello flood, node cloning, Sybil, path contamination, etc. \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{SPINS [63]} & This is a series of protocols based on the use of two protected building units. The first is SNEP, which assures data security, authenticity, and richness. The second is TESLA, which enables authorized broadcasting in constrained environments. & \multirow{6}{*}{Eavesdropping, gray hole, black hole, worm hole, replay, hello flood, node replication, Sybil, route poisoning} & \multirow{6}{*}{Authentication Confidentiality Integrity} & The protocol states that if the nodes participating in the data are far from the source node and the nodes in between are distincted in the data will not be forwarded to the destination. As a result, it is not the best option for high-density node spread. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: List of security protocols with their characteristics and issues.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline