## 3 Mobile Network Security Evolution and the Evolution of Threat Landscape
### Fifth-Generation Network Security
On the flip side, the transition from a traditional network architecture to an all-IP network architecture, particularly evident in 4G networks, has presented a significant pitfall [48; 49]. While it facilitated higher data speeds and a seamless transition between different types of data services, it concurrently increased the network's attack surface. This heightened exposure to security threats like denial-of-service (DoS) and man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks brought to light that the reliance on encryption and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**5G Security Challenge**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Citation(s)**} \\ \hline Network slicing vulnerabilities & [PERSON] (2020, March) [56], [PERSON]; [PERSON] (2021) [57], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2022) [58], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2022) [59]. \\ \hline Authentication weaknesses & [PERSON], et al. (2018) [60]. [PERSON], et al. (2019) [61], [PERSON], et al. (2019) [62]. \\  & [PERSON], et al. (2017) [63]. \\ \hline Data privacy concerns & [PERSON], et al. (2018) [6], [PERSON], et al. (2018) [64], [PERSON], et al. (2019) [4]. \\ \hline Security issues in mMTC & [PERSON], et al. (2022) [65], [PERSON], et al. (2023) [66], [PERSON], et al. (2019) [67] \\ \hline Edge computing security risks & [PERSON], et al. (2020) [68], [PERSON], et al. (2018) [69], [PERSON], et al. (2019) [70], \\  & [PERSON], et al. (2020) [68] \\ \hline Man-in-the-middle attacks in 5G & [PERSON], et al. (2016) [71], [PERSON] (2015) [72], [PERSON], et al. (2019) [73] \\ \hline SDN Risks & [PERSON], et al. (2020) [74], [PERSON], [PERSON] (2022) [75] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Fifth-generation security challenges. authentication alone is not sufficient for ensuring network security [60; 71]. This pitfall signaled the necessity for an integrated, multilayered approach to security, incorporating additional measures such as intrusion detection systems, firewalls, and anomaly detection technologies. The adoption of such an approach, initially in the 4G networks, revealed the value of these complementary measures in enhancing network security and addressing a broader range of threats. However, there is an evolving role of encryption in countering threats: firstly, the encryption in 2G networks, where encryption made its notable debut during the 2G era, particularly focusing on ensuring data confidentiality during transmission. However, as our review uncovered, many of these early encryption protocols, like the A5/1 used in GSM, were susceptible to breaches as hackers grew more sophisticated [47]. Secondly, 3G and 4G encryption. With 3G and 4G, encryption techniques underwent a radical transformation. [PERSON] and [PERSON] elucidated how algorithms became more intricate, aiming to ensure not just confidentiality but also data integrity and authentication. The fourth generation, for instance, leveraged advanced encryption standards (AESs), which provided a robust defense against intrusions. This was a response to the increasingly complex software-based attacks that networks faced [76]. A comparison of the transformation in mobile network security and encryption strategies across generations is shown in Table 3.  
Further, 5G encryption employs a multifaceted approach that leverages a variety of cryptographic techniques. For instance, the use of end-to-end encryption is now more prevalent, and in some instances, mandatory, in order to shield data from potential threats at all points of the transmission chain. Moreover, the inclusion of hardware-based security features like Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) synergizes with cryptographic protocols to provide a fortified layer against physical and software-based attacks [77]. In addition, 5G apsires to be a harbinger of a new era in mobile network security, adopting a more comprehensive, layered, and agile encryption strategy to counter a broader array of threat vectors.