Security and Privacy in Iot Based Smart Farming: A Review

Multimedia Tools and Applications
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-19653-3
Security and privacy in IoT‑based Smart Farming: a review
Iram Asghar Ali1 · Wajahat Anwaar Bukhari2 · Muhammad Adnan3 ·

Muhammad Ismail Kashif2 · Afraz Danish1 · Ammar Sikander1
Received: 6 September 2023 / Revised: 13 March 2024 / Accepted: 7 June 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) is no longer a newbie; it has a long history of serving as
the primary commercial growth driver. Every business nowadays has begun to rely on IoT
technology for market operational excellence. Smart Farming has also adopted IoT tech-
nology and farmers utilize these technologies to monitor crop production, evaluate soil
moisture content, and deploy drones to assist with operations like pesticide spraying. As
more devices link to the Internet, the problems of safeguarding smart farming settings’
cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities grow. Digitalization in agriculture is regarded as
the fourth agricultural revolution, as evidenced by a wide range of available digital tech-
nologies and data applications. This paper describes a systematic literature review (SLR)
on IoT security and privacy and domains in the agricultural industry. This SLR was sum-
marized by studying the research papers published in reputable journals between January
2017 and July 2023. A total of 37 articles were carefully selected from 6 databases using
a systematic method, quality assessment, and classification. The primary objective of this
study is to consolidate all relevant studies on IoT-based Smart Farming (SF) applications
domains, privacy/security, communication/Network protocols, and sensors/devices. It also
highlighted the fundamental difficulties and how smart Farming works in different coun-
tries. Moreover, this review paper analyzes the security difficulties that IoT devices face in
agriculture. Finally, open issues and challenges were discussed to give research with inter-
esting future approaches in IoT agriculture.
Keywords Internet of Things · Smart Farming · Privacy/Security · Sensor/Devices ·

Communication Protocols · Domains of Smart Farming
* Wajahat Anwaar Bukhari

[email protected]
1
Department of Computer Science, National College of Business Administration & Economics
Lahore, Multan Sub Campus, Multan 60000, Pakistan
2
Department of Computer Science, Azteca University, 56600 Chalco de Díaz, Mexico
3
Faculty of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment (CEBE), Birmingham City
University (BCU), Birmingham, UK
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 Introduction
It has been identified that there is a shortage of food and a consistent increase in the
number of the people day by day. The increase in population poses an increasing
demand for food production. There is an obvious challenge of food shortage all over the
world [1]. As population growth continues to rise year after year, the difficulties of food
production in the twenty-first century are becoming an increasingly relevant issue. It is
estimated that by 2050, the world will have between 9.4 and 10.1 billion people who
rely on biodiversity to survive, increasing the necessity for specialized food produc-
tion areas for plants and animals [2]. Smart Farming (SF) techniques are getting more
attention from farmers and increasing the food supply needs. Pakistan is a country that
depends on agriculture where about 47% population is involved in the agriculture sec-
tor. It should be necessary to upgrade with current technologies to the quality of food, to
check soil fertility, humidity water level, and also identify the security threats, which are
an attack on IoT devices /sensors.
Agriculture is the oldest sector in human history, having been practiced for gener-
ations. To fulfill the human population’s ever-increasing demand for food to produce
more food from resources is a significant worry at the rate at which it is growing [3].
Because of overpopulation, the entire agricultural production will rise. As a result,
many acres of agricultural land are being transformed into non-agricultural fields for
infrastructure development near metropolitan centers. The rural area is shrinking dra-
matically on a large scale, as is the amount of Farming, which may result in a decline in
agricultural productivity. The world’s only solution is efficiently enhancing crop yield
using resources [4]. The waste of available resources must be reduced, which brings us
to the concept of Agriculture with remarkable technologies.
Agriculture automation is currently the primary focus and development area for
many countries. The world’s population is fast expanding and will more than double in
the coming decades, as will the demand for food [5]. Agriculture automation is the best
solution for meeting this significant increase in demand. The main responsibility of the
agriculture application is to educate farmers and help them solve agricultural issues.
The agriculture application’s functional goal is to find the best answers to issues and to
see that these solutions work in reality [6].
Pakistan produces 24.946 million metric tons of wheat, 9.178 million bales of cotton,
66.880 million tons of sugarcane, and 7.410 million tons of rice. Citrus, mango, and
guava produce 2.47, 1.64, and 0.56 million tons per year [7]. Similarly, the country has
0.40 million metric tons of chickpeas, 0.12 million metric tons of mung bean, and 2.06
million metric tons of onion. Pakistan is already seeing the repercussions of climate
change, as variations in weather have adversely impacted mango production.
Agriculture is the core of Pakistan’s economy, contributing 26% of GDP and employ-
ing 43% of the labor force [8]. Conventional farming practices, such as rainfall irri-
gation and a cyclic water supply system, are now in use, resulting in excessive and
untimely water use and low crop yield [9].
Many rural inhabitants in Pakistan are still heavily reliant on agriculture for a living.
Despite limited access to farm aids and resources such as compost, pesticides, good
seed, irrigation water, labor, land, and infrastructure, other environmental elements
make peasants more sensitive to climate change [10]. The constant concern confronting
Pakistan’s establishment is the recurrence of climate threats; unfortunately, sufficient
13
utilization of current developments in guidelines, policies, cost-effective tools, and via-

ble interventions still needs to be improved in the country [11].
Vehari villagers face serious environmental and health dangers as a result of farmers’
low literacy rates and lack of technical expertise. Farmers are not fully aware of pesticide
persistence and toxicity (73%) and do not observe pesticide application safety precautions
(100%). Data also show that the locals are unaware of pesticide poisoning symptoms in
humans and basic first-aid techniques (89%) [12].
Agriculture that is healthy Farming is a means of protecting nature without endangering
future generations’ basic requirements while simultaneously enhancing farming efficiency.
In Fig. 1, agriculture cycle represents the crop rotation, nutrient deficit control in crops,
pest and.
disease control, recycling, and water harvesting are the primary achievements in envi-
ronmentally responsible agriculture and SF, resulting in a safer environment overall. Living
species rely on biodiversity and are being polluted by waste pollutants, fertilizer, and pesti-
cide use of degraded dead plants. Emitted greenhouse gases affect plants, animals, humans,
and the ecosystem, which need a more suitable atmosphere for living organisms.
Unfortunately, due to some limitations such as soil quality, height, temperature, and
climate, in addition to the fact that most major farming areas are not suitable, all of
the Earth’s surface could be better for agriculture. Furthermore, because of political
Fig. 1 Agriculture Cycle
13
and fiscal concerns, current agricultural land is divided, as well as rising urbanization,
which continually increases the demand for land. The total amount of farming land used
to produce food has recently been reduced. Moreover, each agricultural area has unique
characteristics, such as soil condition, nutrient present, irrigation outflow, and pest—
resilience, each individually evaluated in terms of quality and quantity for a particular
crop. Farmers using traditional agricultural techniques visit their respective fields fre-
quently during the crop’s life to help comprehend crop conditions. To recognize con-
tinuing field activities even when they are not physically present, advanced sensing and
communication systems offer an in-depth overview of the entire farm and the yield of
crops. Wireless sensors are used to ensure more authorities must ensure crops and inves-
tigate issues earlier, allowing the use of intelligent tools from planting to harvesting.
Increased agricultural productivity is urgently required, and agricultural precision
and SF are now more important than ever. Food shortages and resource waste are chal-
lenges that smart agriculture may successfully address with the help of robots, artificial
intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
[13]. Because IoT devices can monitor temperature, humidity, and other conditions, they
can significantly assist in increasing agricultural production and yield. Furthermore, SF
will make it easier to maintain the farm’s efficiency and safety. Information about crop
production, rainfall, pest infestation, and nutrition of the soil may be provided through
smart applications to farmers, and this accurate data can help farmers improve their
farming techniques over time [14].
Advanced technologies like IoT (Machine learning) ML, AI (Deep Learning) DL,
Robotics, and drones are used daily in irrigation and Farming. These technologies focus
on new approaches like increasing quality in production, accruing in planting, weather
predictions, and intensity of sunlight. Sensors and other machines are used to detect
the reproduction and the growth of the forms. These applications perform several func-
tions like seeding, harvesting, watering, irrigation, spraying of agricultural pests, and
weed detection; COVID-19 positively impacted the IoT solutions due to the shortage
of workers [15]. Because of effective tracking and quick sensor installation, the whole
agricultural process has become sophisticated and expensive. Sensors are connected to
aerial vehicles, automated weeders, and autonomous harvesters to collect data at sched-
uled times [16]. On the contrary side, the breadth of agriculture places tremendous tech-
nical solutions required for long-term environmental sustainability with little effect on
the environment. Farmers can understand crop requirements and needs without visiting
the fields due to sensor technologies and wireless connections, enabling them to take
remote action.
The IoT has become common in many applications for human–machine interaction.
There are many sectors where sensor-based machine-to-machine and machine-to-human
interaction have major applications [17]. Monitoring pH levels, managing micro-level air
conditions, using irrigation systems, and monitoring soil moisture are all components of
intelligent farming. Figure 2 depicts Sensors connected to the Internet are used in "smart
farming" concepts, which continuously send data to specific servers. End users’ needs are
taken into consideration when evaluating and delivering the data. One of the most impor-
tant things to maintain is agricultural parameters. Real-time values of variables including
the moisture content of the soil, soil temperature, air temperature, humidity, cloud cover,
pressure, and others are required to manage farming in the agricultural industry. These
variables are critical in analyzing drought and flood disasters. Technology development is
known as significant for their financial and agricultural production growth. SF is based on
sensors, cloud platform storage, and drones.
13
Fig. 2 IoT-based Smart Farm
Different kinds of sensors are used by SF to gather information for communication.

It sends and receives data for management and analysis by other sensor devices via dif-
ferent satellites using application software and stored in databases. A system that is used
to interconnect the various devices/sensors is referred to as IoT. Recent advances in
technology in IoT-related fields make it simpler to implement and apply smart farming
with IoT [18]. It has many solutions like Water management, Insect pesticide Control,
Monitoring of Crops, Precision Farming, Nutrient Management, Weather Management,
Tracking of the Process of Food Production, and Livestock Monitoring.
I. Sensor technology deployed to collect data these sensors can track weather condi-
tions, water management, soil quality, and food growth.
II. The sensor used to fetch real-world data
III. Use of processor to understand the data
IV. Communication technologies used to transmit data
V. IoT allows maintaining the crops that help plan for enhancing the product
VI. IoT increases the control over SF reduces the waste level, and also manages the cost
VII. It increases business efficiency by using automation
IoT is considered among the most crucial for SF due to its ability to remote sens-
ing without any human interface. These IoT-based technologies create different cyber-
attacks that affect the performance of intelligent Farming and other sensing devices.
Cyber-attacks could have a server for the innovative farm. For example, an unauthorized
person can collect data from a cloud device and change it negatively, which may be
dangerous for the growth of the crops. Cyberattacks are to blame for the death of the
plants in this instance. Due to cyber-attacks, security is the central aspect of SF with the
different properties of IoT devices. The security effects of smart farming were initially
covered in this paper, which also recognized the attacks against SF.
13
In discussing security and cyber-attacks, the main contribution of this review is given
below.
I. To optimize the security aspect in SF and mapping between attacks and security
aspects.
II. To present a systematic review of privacy and security in SF.
III. To identify the different attacks in SF.
This study aims to i) Present a systematic literature review of IoT in intelligent Farm-
ing and ii) identify the network protocols, different hardware like sensor cameras, security
threats, and technologies and their applicability in SF. This review is a systematic literature
review related to the intelligent farming article until the year 2023 and a review about how
to evaluate technologies such as computer networks, AI, ML, deep learning, blockchain,
and fuzzy logic performing the comprehensive review of IoT in SF.
This review explains technologies that allow users and devices to communicate with one
another, are also used in the growth of the products, and detect the various issues regarding
SF. These technologies help to see the other cyber-attacks that are attacked differently in
agriculture forms.
This overview highlights the technologies that are used to communicate with various
devices and users, support the development of new products, and identify a variety of SF-
related issues. These technologies help detect other cyber-attacks that are attacked in differ-
ent ways on agriculture forms. This review presents technologies used for communication
between different devices and users, is also used in the growth of the products, and detects
the various issues regarding SF. These technologies help to see the different cyber-attacks
attacked in different ways on agriculture forms [19].
Moreover, the outline of the paper is illustrated as shown in Fig. 3, in which Sect. 1
provide the brief introduction of Agriculture, IoT and SF. Section 2 provides the required
background and related work. Section 3 discussed the Methodology for review such as:
i) Formulating Research Questions ii) Search Stringiii) Selection Sources (Databases) iv)
Inclusion & Exclusion v) Quality Assessment. Section 4 details IoT architecture such as
electronic tools, cameras, actuators, radio frequency identification devices ZigBee, Blue-
tooth, CC, networking technologies, near-field communication, etc. IoT applications are
discussed in and describes recent IoT protocols like MQTT, CoAP, etc. And describe the
domains of IoT, like Monitoring, Controlling and Tracking Sect. 5 discusses the key chal-
lenges of IoT and paper Taxonomy, and Sect. 6 describes future directions. Finally, the
article is concluded.
1.1 Concept
For a better understanding of some concerns regarding IoT in SF in the twenty-first cen-
tury, some concepts are discussed below:
1.1.1 Smart farming
SF is farming that manages farms with technologies like IoT, robotics, drones, and AI. SF
is based on technologies that are helping to collect environmental data. Each aspect of their
work, from managing cattle to farming crops, can be improved by forms. In SF, Farmers
can quickly determine how much fertilizers they need to apply to achieve efficiency by
13
Fig. 3 Outline of the paper
using a variety of sensors to monitor the condition of the crops. In other words, SF helps
to increase business efficiency through automation, enhance the quality of products, and
monitor the climate conditions using different sensors, drones, and other technologies.
1.1.2 Internet of things
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a technology that enables interactivity between physical
items that are connected to the Internet. These physical objects consist of sensors and
embedded computers like Raspberry Pi and Arduino [20].
Many different sensors, devices, and equipment in an SF produce enormously compli-
cated level, changeable, and geographic data. Threats could arise if such information is
revealed through unauthorized access or by an insider [21].
Smart farms use the IoT, reducing communications (like 5G) and AI. Despite the tra-
ditional idea, which entails sending data to a centralized data center (like the cloud) for
processing before providing the findings to the user, such systems typically demand quick
response times [22].
Use any device like a mobile computer user to process data using different tools like
programming languages such as Python, Java, C + + , etc. Some particular hardware device
is used in IoT, like Raspberry PI and Arduino; other operating systems are used to run
these devices. IoT also uses different layers, such as perceptions, transport, application,
edge computing, and security.
13
In agriculture, it is hard to foresee the future or make judgments without data. Figure 4
depicts the data flow that occurs within a farm. Sensors are used to collect data from the
base layer or base nodes. The initial layer can be used for crop monitoring, soil nutrient
analyses, cattle/livestock, and monitoring irrigation. These sensors are coupled with con-
trollers like the Raspberry Pi, Arduino, and ESP8266. These controllers exchange signals
with the network and with sensors. Data obtained by sensors in the environment will be
sent to the controller. The IoT Gateway will be used to send the controller’s data to the
distant server. The management of data is done by the server.
As remote access to the edge layer is frequently required, this provides hackers with
a straightforward point of entry into the network. Additionally, it becomes simple to
find the IP addresses of edge endpoints when using websites like Shodan20, a platform
that searches all IoT-connected devices. To access the intelligent farm network, in addi-
tion to directly harming IoT devices or edge endpoints, a potential issue is an indirect
attack that compromises third parties. Smart farms, for instance, commonly use third-
party agronomy analytics to analyze the gathered data, which may be used in a variety
of research domains like plant ecology and inheritance, agriculture economic benefits,
demand predictions, and disease predictions. Those parties might be given direct access
to smart farm data on edge for real-time analytics [15]. By phishing for them, hack-
ing their systems, and injecting malicious software, an attacker could divert the data
received from these third parties to other sites for data theft. Since the attackers are uti-
lizing real, stolen third-party credentials, these attacks are challenging to identify.
1.1.3 Applications in agriculture
Using current sensors and IoT technology in agriculture is restoring each component of
conventional farming techniques. Many of the difficulties that traditional agriculture has
been solved by using remote monitoring and IoT in SF, such as land evaluation, dryness
detection, drainage, insect control, and production maximization [23]. Using advanced
instruments at different phases in the following applications, prevention, and reduction
revolutionize agriculture.
Fig. 4 General IoT Data Work-

flow
13
1.1.4 Role of IoT in advanced farming practices
Implementing fresh approaches based on sensor and IoT-based technology increased crop
yields more than traditional agricultural operations. In an IoT-based farm, sensors track and
control elements like moisture, temperature, light, and pressure. Farmers have benefited
from the SF through automated farm operations and protecting plants from severe storms,
winds, Ultraviolet light, and pest and insect attacks. Hydroponics, a subset of hydroculture,
is the practice of growing plants without soil to improve the benefits of farming practices.
Vertical Farming (VF) allows plants to be kept in a perfectly regulated environment, con-
siderably lowering resource utilization while enhancing productivity at different periods,
and based on the number of stacks, only a percentage of the ground surface is required.
As shown in Fig. 5, an IoT network is made up of hardware that is connected to a data
center (or application servers) through a gateway, such as the LoRa end devices that are
wirelessly connected to multiple gateways. A system containing n IoT devices, k aggrega-
tion nodes, and m servers that exemplify the IoT. IoT devices may not disconnect from
aggregator nodes, and they can connect directly to gateways.
1.1.5 Global positioning system (GPS)
GPS data such as longitude, latitude, and elevation are meticulously recorded. GPS satel-
lites transmit signals that enable GPS receivers to determine their position instantly and
provide continuous places even when moving [24]. Farmers can use precise geolocation
data to determine the accurate placements of field information such as pest numbers, soil
composition, plants, and other barriers.
1.1.6 Sensor technologies
Photo electricity, ultrasonography, electrodynamics, and conductance are used to evalu-

ate soil textural characteristics, nutrient content, vegetation, humidity, vapor, air, climate,
and so on. Remote sensing data helps distinguish crop varieties, classify bugs and weeds,
discover soil damage and vegetation situations, and detect drought. Sensing technologies
Fig. 5 System of Internet of Things System
13
make use of sensors for temperature, humidity, soil condition monitoring, airflow, location,
CO2, light, and humidity.
1.1.7 Geographic information system (GIS)
The synthesis, preservation, recovery, characterizing assessment, and location for map con-
struction, as well as feature and location evaluation for statistics and spatial techniques, are
functions of GIS hardware and software. Field soil types, nutrient status, terrain, irriga-
tion, interface, drainage channels, the quantity of chemical spraying, crop yield, and the
relationship between factors influencing a product on a specific agricultural land are all
included in the GIS database.
1.2 Multi‑layered architecture of smart farming
The various user applications that might be envisioned at various stages are reflected in our
SF design. It also shows the necessity for different multi-cloud or edge-cloud situations by
considering the huge amounts of data gathered at the edge or cloud layers.
The architecture’s four main layers are the network communication layer, physical layer,
edge layer, and cloud layer are shown in Fig. 6. The final layer connects the first three by
spanning them all.
1.2.1 Physical layer
Absolute physical sensors and gateway devices are distributed around the smart farm or
in a greenhouse, and the core of the design is made up of structures. These technologies
could include a drone that flies through the air, self-driving tractors, sensors embedded into
Fig. 6 Multi-layered Architecture of Smart Farming
13
livestock, or hubs that connect other smart items to the cloud or one another [25]. The data
sensing is carried out by these technologies. And using the collected data to help activate
devices to achieve several applications for SF. They collect information in real time. On
weather patterns, soil moisture content, or temperatures, that transferred smart decision-
making systems at the edge or on the Internet to enable automation and make suggestions.
For example, information obtained from a field-based soil moisture sensor that has been
processed at the edge or cloud can estimate the amount of water required for a farm, opti-
mize irrigation scheduling, and provide end farmers with a convenient experience.
1.2.2 Edge layer
Because it is proximate to end users and end devices, this layer is useful for local real-
time evaluations and decisions. The centralized cloud layer’s network demand and compu-
tational load are reduced. The layer for edge computing is made up of several edge nodes
[26]. Every node serves as a gateway and offers many services, including data gathering,
Observation, detection of security threats, prediction, and direct decision support. Data
analysis, filtering, encoding, and encryption of real-time data streams are all provided by
data capture services. Security inspection and identification techniques can be deployed to
monitor suspicious events in real-time and determine whether these occurrences are genu-
ine. This comprises services that include device breakdown prediction and fault diagnosis.
1.2.3 Cloud layer
The cloud layer is typically virtualized in cloud services and utilizes the Internet to link to
further layers. These cloud layer services typically simulate design using Platform as a Ser-
vice (PaaS), allowing users to focus on application servers and data import. The PaaS pro-
vider (DFS) runs and maintains a data aggregator that collects data from the edge layer and
stores it in a Distributed File System (DFS). This recorded data is used by analytical soft-
ware to extract information [27]. This data analytics component computes observations,
which are then presented to the user through a client program running on their computer.
1.2.4 Network communication layer
The network layer enables connectivity between the physical and edge levels and provides
a channel for communication between those layers and the cloud layer. From peer-to-peer
sensor communication systems used to exchange soil temperature to high-speed mobile
networks like 5G used to relay data from farm monitoring depots to cloud data sources,
the Network layer provides a method of communication to link all other levels, such as
informing [28]. Using a wireless topology, the farmer can acquire agricultural yields. The
network layer is the most essential component of an SF system [29].
This architecture integrates seamlessly physical, edge, cloud, as well as network com-
munication layers in order to address contemporary agriculture’s intricate issues. The phys-
ical layer uses drones, self-driving agricultural machinery, and embedded sensors which
gather real-time data of weather and soil conditions. The layer underpins automation and
intelligent decision-making. The edge layer, placed proximate end users as well as devices,
decreases computing strain of the cloud layer and allows real-time assessments and deci-
sion-making. Multiple edge nodes provide gateway services including data analysis, safety
risk detection, as well as device failure prediction. The cloud layer, replicated inside cloud
13
services, imports data using PaaS and prioritizes application servers. It extracts and pre-
sents data efficiently with a data aggregation and analysis software. The architecture’s
backbone, the network communication layer, connects the physical, edge, and cloud levels.
The aforementioned layer transmits critical agricultural data via peer-to-peer sensor com-
munication and 5G mobile networks. The multi-layer architecture solves IoT-based Smart
Farming problems via cohesively integrating different levels. An effective structure ena-
bling smart farming technology improves agriculture efficiency, automation, and decision-
making. However, practical deployment in real-world circumstances would help validate
its efficacy.
1.3 Security and privacy
Security and privacy problems in smart farming could include detection, node capture
attacks DOS attacks, Man-in-the-Middle attacks, and computer hacking. Compatibility,
wireless signal strength, storage capacity, power consumption, and computing performance
are a few examples of technology-related problems. In general, take into account how dif-
ferent users will interact with the devices, how much data will be released, and who will
maintain the apps while designing IoT applications. IoT-based smart systems, however,
have additional constraints and limitations. This is primarily due to device computational
power limits and IoT’s heterogeneous and widespread nature [30]. If an IoT device is com-
promised once, hackers can quickly hijack the other devices in its network. Hackers can
promptly access sensitive data transmitted by IoT devices [31]. As a result of its need for
more data security and integrity, IoT may stymie its widespread adoption [32].
Another strictly security-related problem is privacy. Consumers are becoming increas-
ingly conscious that data are now swapping currencies for services in the Internet situation
[33]. The need for more transparency regarding who has access to data may impede the IoT
scenario’s expansion. Researchers now better understand the vulnerabilities found in vari-
ous IoT devices [34].
1.3.1 Security goals
The primary security goals of any cyber system, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability
(CIA), also apply to IoT [35]. To obtain a solution, many security protocols are required.
The CIA triad model consists of three requirements and is the most widely used security
and assurance paradigm. As discussed, IoT technologies, it is crucial to examine the Cyber-
attacks on SF, which are the main threats to SF. Security is a broad topic; therefore, dis-
cussing some aspects in this thesis is only possible. The primary aim of security is to stop
others not part of any resources. Three fundamental characteristics of security are i) Confi-
dentiality, ii) integrity iii) Availability [3].
Confidentiality means Protecting data from unauthorized access. Integrity means data
and information cannot be changed during storage and communication. Availability means
the system must be available for service use [19]. However, when it comes to IoT, the
safety and availability of the hardware and software is the leading property.
Confidentiality Keeping personal information safe from unauthorized parties while in

transmission or at rest. IoT devices can be employed in delicate environments like the
healthcare industry, where patient personal information is critical and potentially life-
threatening. In such instances, confidentiality is crucial and must be handled with care.
13
Integrity When data is sent to the receiver, it might be altered and manipulated, resulting
in an unreliable IoT system service. In most scenarios and applications, the integrity of IoT
devices is critical.
Availability This is among the most important security goals since it ensures that the IoT
device is always operational. DoS assaults on availability are a significant concern for any
company or organization. Access to devices and services may be restricted. As a result,
resulting in severe commercial income losses. As a result, IoT devices and networks must
be dependable and available even in the face of security concerns and attacks.
Figure 7 depicts the idea that various applications, such as those in the manufactur-
ing, food, smart city, transportation, logistics, energy, and healthcare sectors, have various
security requirements in terms of the CIA triad and safety, which can affect the kind of IoT
communication protocol and encryption features that it will support. This can then always
be updated by new technological advancements or altered security standards.
2 Background
Researchers in the agricultural area have proposed various IoT-based devices that increase
output while requiring less labor. Other IoT-based agriculture efforts have also been devel-
oped by researchers to increase agricultural quality and yield. From the literature, specific
IoT-based agricultural strategies have been found and summarized in this section. This sec-
tion contains review of relevant literature. Some studies expressed and collected up-to-date
knowledge regarding connected studies for this research purposes.
The essential points for this research are extracted from the research literature.
Evaluating the research literature removes the critical issues for the proposed research.
Figure 8 shows the timeline of agriculture history. Historically, early agriculture meth-
ods were associated with the productivity of crops in cultivated crops for individual
Fig. 7 CIA in IoT
13
Fig. 8 Timeline of Agriculture History
evolution and animal breeding and were referred to as era 1.0 of conventional Farm-
ing. This was mainly accomplished through the use of humans and animals. Farm-
ing tasks were carried out with simple instruments such as curved blades and swords.
Work was primarily performed by physical labor, and as a result, productivity could
have improved. In the agricultural production of the nineteenth century, various types
of machinery arose in the shape of steam engines. Farmers’ widespread use of agri-
cultural machinery and cheap chemicals signified the beginning of the agrarian period
2.0, which boosted the profitability and efficiency of farmers and farms. However, sig-
nificant negative consequences such as chemical pollution, ecological destruction, loss
of natural resources, and excessive energy use arose concurrently. Because of the fast
expansion of computation and electronics during the twentieth century, the agricultural
era 3.0 emerged. Robotics programmed agricultural machines, and other innovations
improved agricultural processes.
Work allocation, accurate irrigation, conventional chemical use, location nutrient appli-
cation, and effective pest control techniques, among other things, were used to address
challenges that arose during the agricultural era 2.0, and regulations were backported to the
agrarian age 3.0.
The next farming era, agricultural era 4.0, is also agriculture’s most recent iteration,
with the utilization of contemporary technologies such as IoT, extensive data analysis, AI,
cloud computing, and remote sensing are just a few examples. New technology adoption
has greatly enhanced farming production by constructing low-cost sensor and networking
systems at optimizing productivity levels while minimizing the use of freshwater resources
and energy with little environmental impact. With advanced, SF improves precision agri-
culture and allows farmers to closely control the plants. Because the digitization of sensors
and technology has made farming more productive, SF enhances agricultural operations
such as harvesting and crop yields [36]. Automated machines are replacing conventional
farming practices, resulting in a digital change in agriculture. Modern farming methods
have been altered by agricultural technology, and the Internet of Things has changed tradi-
tional methods. Modern ICT tools including the IoT, and GPS (sensors, robotics, drones,
based controllers, motors, and data analysis are utilized to evaluate farmers’ demands and
identify acceptable solutions to their difficulties [37]. These advances promote crop output
by increasing the quality and responsiveness of decisions. The recommendation of SF tech-
nology to increase agricultural output has come from numerous international organizations
and developing nations worldwide. Monitoring devices check crops with increased accu-
racy, recognizing any unfavorable problems early in the crop’s lifecycle. From crop seed-
ing to harvesting, storage, and transporting modern Farming uses smart tools. The efficient
13
usage of a variety of sensors has changed the company into one that is more productive and
cost-effective because of its accurate monitoring capabilities.
Real-time agricultural processes and activities including irrigation, plant protec-
tion, product quality improvement, fertilizing, disease prediction, etc. greatly benefit
from IoT technologies [38]. Real-time crop data collecting, comprehensive crop and soil
assessments, farmer monitoring from a distance, management of water and other natural
resources, and increased livestock and agricultural output are all advantages of smart agri-
culture. Consequently, the definition of smart agriculture is the advancement of precision
agriculture through the use of smart technologies and digitization to gather a wide range
of data on agricultural activities, which is then directly controlled and improved by viable
real-time farm solutions to choose from. A wireless sensor network (WSN) is a type of net-
work that connects various sensors to receive data from the sensors. [39, 40]. Using WSNs
helps to present the system, which is used to monitor the humidity, temperature, moni-
toring of security land detection, etc. [41]. GPS is used to monitor agricultural manage-
ment, which gathers data on temperature, rainfall, and crop loss issues and analyses them
to enhance business production. Also, get the location and information anytime for soil and
crop measurement [42].
2.1 IoT‑based Smart Farming in different countries
In terms of real implementations, technologies and policies based on proof consistently

lead the way. Similarly, if the agriculture industry is to go through an innovative change
over the coming decades shown in Fig. 9, new laws and policies will be crucial. Even
though IoT SF services are already covered by existing rules, several global initiatives have
these policies and regulations as their primary objectives.
2.1.1 Thailand
To promote Thailand 4.0, the Thai government wants to use new technologies in Thai agri-
culture. The agricultural university Maejo University in Chiangmai has a strategy to build
a Smart Lingzhi mushroom farm designed to control the atmosphere of the Lingzhi mush-
room farm. Establishing a smart Lingzhi mushroom farm is to encourage Thai farmers to
adopt new forms of modern agriculture. [43] Thailand develops an agricultural field con-
trol system with node sensors that manages data using a web application and a smartphone
app.
Based on WSN, a water control system has been developed to monitor water utilization
across the entire area. Three distinct fields in Thailand have tested and used the designed
method. After being enacted, results showed that for the great production of vegetables and
lemons, the humidity level should be between 70 and 80%, and the temperature should be
between 29 and 32. Future Thailand is likely to see a rise in the importance of SF. Cur-
rently, rice, rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconut, palm oil, cattle, and fisheries represent most
of Thailand’s agricultural industry, contributing around 8.5% of the country’s overall GDP
[44]. Despite the sector’s significance, particularly for rural employment, it faces several
obstacles, including a labor shortage and Thailand’s high vulnerability to climate change.
These circumstances in Thailand’s agricultural sector require solutions like SF, which help
maximize yields under uncertain conditions. For creating a WSN-based system for agri-
cultural irrigation. Using node sensors in the agricultural field, a web application, and a
13
Fig. 9 IoT-Based Smart Farming in Different Countries
smartphone app, this work tried to develop and install a control system with data manage-
ment [45].
The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) seeks to turn conventional
Farming into SF, or Agriculture 4.0, through technology and innovations, as part of
Thailand’s 20-Year National Strategy Plan. The MOAC appoints the SF-driven commit-
tee, which is in charge of enforcing SF plans and policies and guiding the development of
MOAC’s smart agriculture through the adoption of SF in agricultural fields, a result of big
data platforms, AI, production of robots and other machines, advancements in agriculture
growth and investigation, remote monitoring technology, and showed an increase in the
number of farmers [46]. The Young Smart Farmer (YSF) initiative was introduced by the
Thai government in 2014 as an action taken to reduce the population decline of young peo-
ple working in agriculture [47].
2.1.2 Brazil
One of the significant producers of food in the world, mainly Brazil, is a major producer
of industrial grains such as rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans. Period of the growing of
2015–16, Brazil produced 186.3 million tonnes of grains, with the southern country pro-
viding 40% of the total. Additionally, Brazil produced 113.92 million tonnes of soybeans in
the 2016–17 season, placing it second globally [48]. To explain Brazil’s low SF adoption,
13
they provide empirical proof of the significance of farm qualities, institutional factors,
information searches, and being a farmer. To provide an overview of current SF potential
in Brazil from a position of professionals in the sector. Semi-structured interviews with
the Brazilian market and research specialists were conducted as part of the study, and data
mining software was used to achieve a bibliometric survey [49]. Integration across the vari-
ous systems available was discovered to be among the critical obstacles to SF’s progress.
They demonstrate the "Agri-Prediction," which integrates the architecture of a short- and
medium-range wireless network [50]. A proactive agricultural problem detection engine
that alerts the farmer to take quick remedial action.
2.1.3 Japan
Since 2019, The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) has
promoted the use of smart agricultural technology and its application in farming areas
through its "Smart Agriculture Acceleration Implementation Project". Field tests, for
instance, are currently being conducted for self-driving tractors, technology for transplant-
ing, water management techniques, mapping, and pest control using farming drones or
(UAVs). The MAFF has a quantifiable target to increase the amount of field space sprin-
kled by UAVs to up to 1 million hectares by 2022, and certain user-friendly policies are
being changed. To evaluate the viability of UAVs for rice fields in Japan, research compar-
ing pest-control sprayers, tractor-mounted boom sprayers, remote-control spraying helicop-
ters (RC helicopters), and UAVs was carried out [51].
2.1.4 Malaysia
One of the main economic sectors in Malaysia has been oil palm production. Malaysia
currently contributes an incredible amount to the world production and export of palm oil,
which are 39% and 44%, respectively. Malaysian farmers still need to fully implement SF.
However, several studies and applications have been publicized. One of these was a pilot
project (2001–2007) carried out in Sawah Sempadan and started by the Malaysian Remote
Sensing Agency (MACRES) in collaboration with organizations involved in agriculture
and University Putra Malaysia (UPM). The main goal of this development was to estab-
lish a spatial decision support system for the maintenance of sustainable paddy farms. The
Malaysian National Paddy Precision Farming Project includes GIS modeling, water man-
agement, variable rate treatment, yield mapping, and soil variability mapping [52]. Using
LiDAR sensors to map the soil’s elevation and collect geographic data is practiced in oil
palm plantations. According to Norazlida Jamil (2014), the husk can be identified using
infrared imaging and separated from the seed. For fruit traceability, an IoT system was
built in Malaysia. Mi-Trace is an IoT-based system created by Malaysia’s Ministry of Sci-
ence, Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI). The system was designed as a tracking tool
for farm commodities, especially musang king fruit, to support exporters and importers in
verifying the fruit’s authenticity and quality [53].
2.1.5 Taiwan
A cost-effective IoT platform for agriculture in Taiwan has been created to monitor soil
health [54]. The infrastructure has been put in place to follow the cultivation of turmeric.
Taiwan is facing severe issues such as land breakdown, a declining people of agricultural
13
laborers, and changeable weather brought on by climate change, all of which pressure agri-
cultural productivity. Using modern information and communication technologies (ICTs)
has become one of the crucial measures for Taiwanese government workers. It improves
the growth of smart agriculture, enhances Taiwan’s agricultural sector’s competitiveness,
and deals with the heavy pressure in production management. The "Smart Farm Manage-
ment System" (SFMS) was launched by the Council of Agriculture’s Information Manage-
ment Center (IMC) in 2015. In 2015, the "Intelligent Agriculture Production and Sales
Add-value Program" and the "Smart Farm Management System (SFMS)" projects were
initiated by the Information Management Center of the Council of Agriculture (IMC,
COA) [55]. More than 18,000 customers have signed up to use the "Smart Farm Man-
agement System" through 2021 to control more than 110,000 hectares of their land. The
development of mobile devices makes it easier for people to implement the systems and
run their businesses profitably. Design and added benefits from the "Smart Farm Manage-
ment System" and "Agriculture Mobile Service Platform" offered to Taiwan’s agriculture
industry. The applications of the "Smart Farm Management System" control the manage-
ment of the cultivating area, dispatch, field operation documentation, and tracking of the
status of each land’s cultivation have all been vastly enhanced. It provides solutions to
issues brought on by farming outsourcing. Create a framework for an intelligent irrigation
system, use appropriate sensor components and control panels, construct a prototype, pro-
gram irrigation control software to regulate the amount of watering based on soil moisture,
and provide remote control buttons and voice control to activate the irrigation system [56].
A program called Sensor-Talk has been created to partially self-adapt the current sensors
and automatically identify likely sensor failures. It is shown how to adjust temperature and
humidity sensors. While the sensors are controlling the actuators, the Sensor-Talk system
may also identify whether a loss happens during a detection delay [57].
2.1.6 China
China has always given the advancement of Agri-IoT significant importance. More specifi-
cally, China has executed several demonstration projects and applied several legislations.
Opinions on Sped Agricultural Development Modes Transformation were suggested to cre-
ate precision production methods, promote the creation of mature and repeatable Agri-IoT
application modes, and actively conduct regional Agri-IoT pilot projects. The 13th Five-
Year National Informatization Plan (The State Council, 2016b) made direct mention of
smart agriculture’s development as offering innovations for expediting agricultural devel-
opment. The Agricultural Equipment Industry and Agricultural Mechanization: Acceler-
ating Transformation and Upgrade Guidelines demonstrate intelligent agriculture use and
encourage satellite navigation. Information technologies such as big data, mobile Inter-
net, intelligent controls, agricultural equipment, and others are utilized. According to the
Report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, new industrializa-
tion, information technology, urbanization, and agricultural modernization should coincide
[58]. To achieve agrarian modernization in China, Agri-IoT technology development and
SF are crucial because IoT has the potential to solve issues with low worker productivity
and a labor shortage in rural areas. According to the project "70 Years of Agricultural Sci-
ence and Technology Development in China" (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs,
2019), China’s advancements in this field are now the primary factor driving the expan-
sion of rural and agricultural economies. In the global market for agricultural technology,
smart agricultural equipment, and robots, plant protection services provided by unmanned
13
aerial vehicles (UAVs), Agri-IoT, plant factories, and extensive agricultural data, respec-
tively, account for 34%, 45%, 34%, 30%, and 30% of the market. An unmanned farm is a
new type of production that uses various technologies instead of labor to carry out all farm
production tasks remotely, automatically throughout the entire process with machinery,
equipment, and facilities, or autonomously with robots [59]. These technologies include
IoT, Big Data, AI, fifth-generation (5G) technology, and robots. The highest level of intel-
ligent agriculture and agricultural output is the unmanned form. Figure 9 presents the IoT
based smart farming strategies and technologies used in different countries.
2.1.7 Africa
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, food insecurity is
a problem compounded by anthropogenic climate change in East Africa. One that is
made worse by anthropogenic climate change. In particular, families of subsistence farm-
ers struggle to make food when a season’s number of crops is destroyed by droughts and
floods. Adopting modern farming methods that can enhance climatic adaptability is recom-
mended to promote food security in East Africa, particularly for women and subsistence
farmers. It created a small-scale aquaponic farming system that raises fish and vegetables
at the same time to lessen food poverty in East Africa and the negative effects of climate
change on these farmers [60]. This system created a small-scale aquaponic system for an
East African women’s collective. It helps in preparing rural East African women for cli-
mate change adaptation. An automated irrigation system was created, and its performance
was examined. It offers improved irrigation techniques that maximize water efficiency and
effectively distribute water for increased agricultural production [61].
For African cities to be inclusive, resilient, and sustainable, Urban Smart Farming
(USF) has emerged as a critical option [62]. The USF may lead the industry 4.0 green
revolution in agriculture since it combines digital technology. The relationship between the
local African communities is examined in this study. Its objective is to participate in USF
projects and evaluate participants’ opinions of the program’s benefits and disadvantages as
a potential way to improve food production and the urban economy.
2.1.8 India
India is not a developed country regarding agricultural implementation, even though its
GDP primarily depends on agriculture. High labor expenses, uncertain crop yields, a lack
of knowledge about new techniques, staying with the same traditional agricultural meth-
ods, and inefficient use of sufficient irrigational infrastructure are all causes of low produc-
tivity. This fluctuation in irrigation strategy could cause crops to dry out. It is hugely con-
cerning because agriculture accounts for 14.7% of India’s development. Using networks,
a new idea of Farming is offered that reduces labor requirements, keeps farmers informed
of farm conditions synchronously via mobile devices, and displays the graphical value of
the farm using thing speak. The process is more straightforward with the reformation at
the click of a button [63]. They tested a method’s reliability with a modest temperature-
detecting application.
The small-scale and vulnerable farmers in India can benefit from modern electronic and
information and communication technologies (ICT) solutions that boost agricultural output
and profitability. They offer a comprehensive IoT-based system for early detection of leaf
miner pests and late leaf spot disease in groundnuts [64]. A scientific process for creating
13
a castor grey mold illness warning model. Proposed a remote sensing and management
system for greenhouse farming. Balancing CO2, moisture in the soil, temperature, and light
is the major goal. The greenhouse’s windows and doors are held open once every three
months throughout the year for the crops, depending on the soil moisture. The objectives
are to improve production and then provide organic Farming. The results indicated that
remote monitoring of CO2, soil moisture, temperature, and greenhouse lighting is achiev-
able [65]. Several sensors are included in this hypothetical wireless robot to measure vari-
ous environmental variables. The key characteristics of this innovative, intelligent wireless
robot include the capacity to perform tasks like moisture detection, scaring animals and
birds, spraying pesticides, moving forward or backward, and turning on/off electric motors.
A wireless camera has been installed on the robot to monitor real-time activity [66]. The
proposed wireless mobile robot has been tested in the field, where positive outcomes have
been observed while readings have been tracked. This indicates that the technology is ben-
eficial for smart agricultural systems. Wireless sensor networks (WSN) have been used for
agricultural purposes all around the world [67].
2.1.9 Pakistan
Pakistan’s economy is based mainly on agriculture, which provides 43% of all labor and
26% of the country’s GDP. To produce the best agricultural production, agriculture must
be precise and accurate. Low agricultural output can be attributed to some factors in vari-
ous parts of Pakistan, including the lack of strategic thinking at all stages of the growing
season that is available in the farmers’ local language, their illiteracy, and the absence of
a smart system for remote access to fields. A proposed system is an Internet of Agricul-
tural Things (IoT) based smart system. The strategy examined the environmental factors at
particular farms. The analysis of soil fertility, effective crop cultivation, automated irriga-
tion, and directions, the harvest timetable, insect and weed control, understanding of crop
diseases, and fertilizer recommendations are all made possible by helping farmers under-
stand soil and environmental factors [68]. The system includes the bilingual (Urdu and
English) Android application "Kistan Pakistan" (prototype). For usage by farmers of vari-
ous literacy rates, the mobile application has visual elements, audio, voice, and iconic and
textual menus. According to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Pakistan is among the top
10 onion-producing countries. Onion production is vital in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Only the Malakand division produces 60% of the country’s total onion production. A three-
layered IoT architecture-based smart farming monitoring system (SFMS) to reduce bolting.
IoT technology and thorough remote monitoring can create an environment suitable for
decreasing and preventing onion bolting [69]. Table 1 presents a comparison of the main
difficulties and working of smart farming in different countries.
3 Research methodology
Several works have been searched in recent years. This research has explored five databases
related to SF from the perspective of security issues and challenges in SF. For this purpose,
the article was searched by the IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, ACM Digital Library, MDPI,
Springer, and Taylor & Francis Online. These searched articles consist of security and pri-
vacy and IoT-based SF. The review of the different attacks affected the SF according to
Fig. 10. These searched articles were published in the past 5 years.
13
Table 1 Comparative Summary of Different Countries
Country Main Difficulties Smart Agriculture Initiatives
Thailand Labor shortage, vulnerability to climate change in agricultural sector - Agricultural field control system with node sensors for data management
- WSN-based water control system for monitoring water utilization
- Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) adopting Agriculture 4.0
- Young Smart Farmer (YSF) initiative to reduce population decline in young
farmers
Brazil Low adoption of smart farming due to farm qualities, institutional factors, and - "Agri-Prediction" system integrating short- and medium-range wireless net-
information searches works

- Emphasis on the significance of farm qualities and institutional factors
- Integration challenges identified as a critical obstacle
Japan Emphasis on smart agricultural technology through the "Smart Agriculture - Field tests for self-driving tractors, transplanting, water management, mapping,
Acceleration Implementation Project." and pest control using UAVs
- Goal to increase UAV-sprinkled field space to 1 million hectares by 2022
- Research comparing various pest-control methods, including UAVs
Malaysia Need for full implementation of smart farming in oil palm production - Malaysian National Paddy Precision Farming Project: GIS modeling, water
management, variable rate treatment, yield mapping, and soil variability map-
ping
- Use of LiDAR sensors in oil palm plantations for soil elevation mapping
- Mi-Trace IoT system for fruit traceability, especially musang king fruit
Taiwan Land breakdown, declining agricultural labor force, and climate change chal- - "Smart Farm Management System" (SFMS) launched in 2015, managing over
lenges 110,000 hectares of land
- "Intelligent Agriculture Production and Sales Add-value Program" initiated in
2015
- Development of mobile applications for implementing smart farming systems
- "Sensor-Talk" program for self-adaptation of sensors and automatic identifica-
tion of failures
13
Table 1 (continued)
Country Main Difficulties Smart Agriculture Initiatives
13
China Focus on Agri-IoT development for agricultural modernization - Execution of demonstration projects and legislation for Agri-IoT advancement
- Implementation of precision production methods and regional Agri-IoT pilot
projects
- Integration of big data, mobile Internet, intelligent controls, and agricultural
equipment
- Unmanned farm concept utilizing IoT, Big Data, AI, 5G technology, and robots
Africa Food insecurity due to anthropogenic climate change, impacting subsistence - Small-scale aquaponic farming system for climate change adaptation in East
farmers Africa
- Automated irrigation system for improved water efficiency and agricultural
production
India High labor expenses, uncertain crop yields, lack of knowledge about new - Farming using IoT networks to reduce labor requirements and provide real-time
techniques farm conditions via mobile devices
- IoT-based system for early detection of leaf miner pests and late leaf spot
disease in groundnuts
- Remote sensing and management system for greenhouse farming
- IoT-based wireless robot for tasks like moisture detection, spraying pesticides,
and monitoring
Pakistan Lack of strategic thinking, illiteracy, and absence of smart systems for remote - IoT-based smart system for precision agriculture, including soil analysis, auto-
access to fields mated irrigation, and pest control
- Mobile application "Kistan Pakistan" for farmers with visual elements, audio,
and bilingual support
- Three-layered IoT architecture-based smart farming monitoring system (SFMS)
for onion production
Fig. 10 Research Methodology
3.1 Research questions
RQ1: Which IoT-based technologies are used in smart Farming?

RQ1.1: What are the primary IoT application domains in agriculture?
RQ1.2:What IoT devices/sensors have been used in agriculture?
RQ1.3:Which IoT network/communication protocols are utilized in agriculture?
RQ2:What problems are faced by farmers in IoT-based smart Farming?
RQ2.1:What is the primary focus of selected studies?
RQ2.2:What is the security issues farmer faced in smart Farming?
RQ3:What solutions are available in IoT-based smart Farming?
RQ3:1 What methods are used to handle IoT agriculture problems?
RQ3.2 How has the frequency of approaches to IoT agriculture varied over time?
3.2 Search string
Several works have been searched in recent years. This research has explored six data-
bases related to SF from the perspective of security issues and challenges in SF. For this
purpose, the article was searched by the IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, ACM Digital
Library, Springer, MDPI, and Taylor & Francis Online. These searched articles consist
of security and privacy and IoT-based SF. The review of the different attacks was the
effect on SF. These searched articles were published in the past 5 years. This search has
been explored by many keywords. The search strings used in various databased has been
provided in Table 2. Thus, keywords searched on databases were the following:
13
13
Table 2 Search String
Database Search String Number of Publications Years
Articles
Taylor & Francis Online All: smart Farming] AND [All: cyber security] AND [All: IoT] AND [Publication Date: (01/01/2017 TO 114 2017–2023
12/31/2023)]
ACM Digital Library [All: smart farming] AND [All: cyber security] AND [All: iot] AND [E-Publication Date: 206 2017–2023
(01/01/2023 TO 12/31/2023)]
Science direct (smart farming) AND (cyber security) AND (IoT) 192 2017–2023
Springer [All: smart farming] AND [All: cyber security] AND [All: iot] AND [E-Publication Date: 135 2017–2023
(01/01/2017 TO 12/31/2023)]
IEEE Xplore ("All Metadata”: smart farming) AND ("All Metadata”: cyber security) AND ("All Metadata”: IoT) 21 2017–2023
MDPI (smart farming) AND (cyber security) AND (IoT) 66 2017–2023
• ("All Metadata": smart Farming) OR ("All Metadata": cyber security) AND ("All
Metadata": IoT)
• When these keywords are searched on IEEE Xplore database, it shows 4183 articles
that were very difficult to readout all articles. That’s why again, the operator changed
on this database following keywords.
• ("All Metadata": smart Farming) AND ("All Metadata": cyber security) AND ("All
Metadata": IoT)
• These keywords show the 10 articles from 2017 to 2022.
3.3 Selection strategy
The searched article was downloaded for a systematic literature review. Duplicate entries
were removed. The literature review was carried out in the screening phase to identify the
title, keywords, abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
From databases, there are 734 articles searched. These searched articles were further
reviewed to identify the relevant articles from the mentioned databases. 562 papers were
considered discarded and invalid. The remaining 172 articles were selected from different
databases 36% of the articles were not selected for SF because they focused on improv-
ing IoT in SF. For further screening, 40 Articles were specified by abstract from Taylor &
Francis Online. While 3 articles were selected for additional screening, there were chosen
articles from this database because they discussed cyber-security in SF using other tech-
nologies instead of IoT.
Similarly, 120 articles were selected through further abstract screening. 80 papers were
selected by reading the introduction and conclusion. For the systemic literature review, 4
articles were chosen from ACM Digital Library, 9 were selected from ScienceDirect, 9
papers were selected from IEEE Xplore, 9 articles were chosen from MDPI, 4 articles were
selected from springer, and 3 articles were selected from Taylor & Francis Online. Totally
six databases were searched for articles. Finally, 37 articles were selected by reading com-
plete articles from six of the selected databases. After screening, these 37 articles were
considered for literature review and were included in this study as a sample. Table 3 pre-
sents the selection strategy of the articles from different databases.
3.4 PRISMA diagram
We created a search strategy to find pertinent material by the Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of PRISMA (PRISMA) standards at all stages.
Figure 11 elaborate the data extraction is carried out for all 37 selected publications and the
results are tabulated using a PRISMA diagram.
3.5 Inclusion & exclusion criteria
Quality criteria are specified in addition to inclusion and exclusion criteria to evaluate the
quality of papers chosen after the full-text screening.
13
13
Table 3 Selection and Screening Process
Phase Process Selection Criteria Taylor & Fran- ACM Digital Science Direct MDPI IEEE Xplore Springer Total
cis Online Library
1 Searching Keywords 114 206 192 66 21 135 734

2 Screening Title 30 50 50 20 10 12 172
3 Further screening Abstract 25 35 25 15 10 10 120
4 Further screening Introduction and Conclusion 13 20 23 10 10 4 80
5 Evaluation Complete Article 3 4 9 8 9 4 37
Fig. 11 PRISMA flow diagram for the screening & selection of studies
Fig. 12 Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria
13
The quality of the identified literature can be assessed in Fig. 12 by using these criteria
to determine whether it is relevant for this systematic review based on its importance in
answering the research questions.
3.6 Year‑wised distribution of selected studies
The papers were published between 2017 and 2023. This demonstrates that the number of
publications increases yearly, indicating the growing interest in IoT in agriculture shown in
Fig. 13.
3.7 Quality assessment
Quality assessment measures the standard of the papers chosen for systematic reviews. In
SLR, quality assessment is carried out to assess the quality of the selected paper. In this
SLR, a questionnaire is designed to measure the quality of the selected paper. The previous
mapping study carried out a quality assessment [39].
a) The research study discussed security attacks and security issues using IoT in SF. The
possible answers in this regard were "Yes" (+ 1), "Partially" (+ 0.5), and "No" (0).
b) The research study discussed IoT technologies used in each article. The possibility of
answers in this regard will be “Yes” (+ 1), “Partially” (+ 0.5), and “No” (0).
c) The research study had been provided empirical evidence. The possibility of answers
in this regard will be “Yes” (+ 1), “Partially” (+ 0.5), and “No” (0).
d) The answers to these questions will be evaluated from SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) lists
and CORE ranking conference papers. Possible solutions to conferences and journals
are shown in the table.
3.8 SCImago journal rank
The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is used to measure the quality reputation of the journals,
check the influence of scholarly journals, the number of citations received by a journal,
2023
Year of publications
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number of Publications
Fig. 13 Year-wise Publications
13
Table 4 Quality criteria SJR Sources Ranking Score
Journal Q1 2
Q2 1.5
Q3 or Q4 1
If the paper will not be in an SJR 0
ranking, then:
Conference CORE A 2
CORE B 1.5
CORE C 1
If the paper will not show in a 0
CORE ranking, then:
and verify where the citations come from. Journal ranking criteria will be ranked between
Q1-Q4, and conference ranking criteria will be ranked between Core A to Core C. Table 4
presents the number of articles chosen from quartile ranking of journal articles and core
ranking of the conference papers chosen for this study.
3.9 Quality assessment of selected studies
Quality criteria are specified in addition to inclusion and exclusion criteria to evaluate the
quality of papers chosen after the full-text screening. The quality of the identified literature
can be assessed using these criteria to determine whether it is relevant for this systematic
review based on its importance in answering the research questions. Table 5 provides the
quality assessment of the selected research studies.
3.10 Result of selected studies
This part provides the data extraction results in connection to the research questions
defined in the "Research Questions" section. Table 6 shows the technologies, sensor and
devices, protocol / Network, attacks, application domain, and main focus of the articles
related to security and privacy of IOT based smart farming.
4 Analysis
This section describes the findings connected to the SLR questions stated in the following
selection of the screening method, an important addition to the IoT agriculture field has
been made by using research papers to clarify each research question’s response.
4.1 RQ1: Which IoT‑based technologies are used in smart farming?
In different sectors, numerous organizations use various kinds of devices and sensors.
A sensor-equipped embedded system and its corresponding WSN make up IoT devices.
PH, temperature, humidity, soil monitoring, gas, motion, and moisture sensors are
among the sensors that are frequently used. These sensors make a suitable environment
13
Table 5 Quality assessment of References Year Medium Quality Assessment

selected studies
A B C D Score
[1] 2020 Journal 0 1 1 1.5 3.5

[15] 2020 Journal 1 1 1 2 5
[19] 2021 Journal 1 0.5 1 1.5 4.5
[39] 2019 Journal 1 1 1 2 5
[70] 2018 Journal 1 1 1 2 5
[71] 2020 Journal 1 1 1 2 5
[72] 2020 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[73] 2019 Journal 0 1 0.5 2 3.5
[74] 2020 Journal 1 1 1 2 5
[75] 2019 Journal 1 1 1 2 5
[76] 2019 Journal 0 1 1 0 2
[77] 2018 Conference 0.5 0 1 1 2.5
[78] 2021 Journal 0 1 1 0 2
[79] 2021 Journal 0 1 1 0 2
[80] 2020 Journal 1 1 1 0 2
[81] 2020 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[82] 2022 Journal 1 1 1 2 5
[83] 2021 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[84] 2019 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[85] 2021 Journal 1 0 1 2 4
[86] 2018 Journal 1 0 1 2 4
[87] 2022 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[88] 2019 Journal 0 1 1 1 4
[89] 2017 Conference 0 1 1 2 4
[90] 2017 Conference 1 0.5 1 2 3.5
[91] 2019 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[92] 2017 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[93] 2018 Journal 1 0.5 1 1 4.5
[94] 2019 Journal 0 0.5 1 2 3.5
[95] 2021 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[96] 2020 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[97] 2021 Journal 0 1 1 2 4
[98] 2020 Journal 1 0.5 1 1.5 4
[99] 2021 Journal 0 1 1 1.5 3.5
[100] 2021 Journal 0 1 1 1.5 3.5
for the agriculture farm and enhance portability, reliability, durability, computing effi-
ciency, and performance [103]. This systematic study demonstrates that numerous
researchers studied primary sensors like soil moisture measurements, relative humidity,
and monitoring of temperatures. Real-world parameters are captured by a sensing com-
ponent [82]. These are directly connected to the routers to communicate and analyze
the information. The sensor gathers data and transmits it to the base stations for data
collection [104]. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) use drones to cover a wide range
13
Table 6 Results of selected studies
Ref Year Technologies Sensor and devices protocol /Network Attacks Application Domain Main focus
[1] 2020 IoT UAV Bluetooth LoRa N/A Monitoring The major technology
Raspberry Pi RFID Controlling platforms, protocols for
Arduino ZigBee Tracking networks, analysis tech-
temperature humidity Wi-Fi nologies, and agricultural
Sigfox applications of SF with
MQTT IoT are defined in this
article
[15] 2020 IoT Various sensor WIFI Data Monitoring This paper elaborates on the
Bluetooth, Networking & Equipment different layered attacks
ZigBee Supply Chain on the smart farm
GPRS Cloud Computing
[19] 2021 IoT Raspberry Pi WSN Side Channel Controlling SF environments, which
Wi-Fi RF Jamming Tracking enables to recognize
IEEE 802.11 DoS attack behavior
Data Leakage
False Data Injection
[39] 2019 IoT PH WSN Information Disruptions Monitoring Study how Used IoT based
Temperature RFID Host Properties Controlling network technologies
Humidity GPS Networks Properties Tracking and how to identify their
ZigBee attacks on different sens-
Sigfox ing devices
Bluetooth
WIFI
[70] 2018 IoT PH WSN DoS Monitoring Identify IoT domains, vari-
Soil Moisture RFID Controlling ous types of sensors, and
Temperature ZigBee Tracking different communications
Humidity Water Level LR-WPAN protocols
Sigfox
Bluetooth WIFI
13
Table 6 (continued)
13
[71] 2020 IoT CCTV cameras WSN DDoS Monitoring They discussed Machine
RIFD Drainage learning-based IoT archi-
4G- 5G Sleep Deprivation tecture, protocols, and
ZigBee Node Outage different attacks in SF
Wi-Fi DoS
GPRS
IPv4
[72] 2020 IoT Raspberry pi WSN N/A Monitoring Discussed how the rise of
Soil Moisture RIFD IoT devices is advanc-
Temperature GSM ing IoT technologies in
Humidity Wi-Fi agriculture
Water Level ZigBee
Bluetooth RIFD
[73] 2019 IoT GPS RFID N/A Monitoring The experimental frame-
Raspberry Pi Zigbee work and simulation
Wi-Fi design suggest that it is
Bluetooth possible to implement the
MQTT fundamental features of
WSN an IoT tracking system for
agriculture
[74] 2020 IoT Raspberry Pi Wi-Fi DoS Tracking discus Wi-Fi attacks to
HTTP Reinstallation Controlling manage the farms. How to
Evil Twin Access Point prevent Raspberry Pi and
Password Cracking sensor from attacks
[75] 2019 IoT Temperature Monitoring WSN DoS Monitoring Review of some security
Humidity Monitoring Sybil Tracking attacks and security weak-
Smoke Detector Man-In-The-Middle Controlling nesses in IoT Applications
Malware
Table 6 (continued)
[76] 2019 IoT FarmBot 6LoWPAN N/A Monitoring This study examines the
UAV sensor Wi-Fi Tracking role of IoT and the vari-
Controlling ous tools, hardware, and
software utilized in IoT-
based SF
[77] 2018 IoT N/A GPS Cyber terrorism Monitoring Using an empirical
Tracking technique, this study high-
Controlling lights some perspectives

on the security issues that
SF systems
[78] 2021 IoT Drones WSNs N/A Monitoring This article is focused on
SDSS Robot 5G new approaches to SF,
3D cameras like 5G networks IoT
climate sensors, based drones, Robots, and
3D cameras, which are
used to monitor the smart
farm conditions
[79] 2021 IoT Humidity WSNs N/A Monitoring This survey discussed the
Soil temperature trend in SF and discussed
some applications and
devices in SF
[80] 2020 IoT CCTV WSN DDoS Controlling Disuses the IoT in each
Temperature GPS, RFID spoofing layer along with the differ-
Motion RFID Phishing ent threats
Pressure Wi-Fi Ethernet Sniffing Also discussed the different
MQTT Insider IoT applications
SQL injection
[81] 2020 IoT Temperature GPRS N/A Monitoring Recent technology develop-
Motion 4G Controlling ments in iot application
Pressure LPWA sectors
13
Table 6 (continued)
13
[82] 2022 IoT PH GPS Data attack Monitoring Discussed different Tech-
Soil Network Tracking nologies and security
Temperature Supply chain attack Controlling issues in smart agriculture
Humidity
[83] 2021 IoT Temperature 5G N/A Monitoring Concentrating on the prob-
Artificial intelligence Smart Stick lems mentioned in the
Soil Moisture framework for SF
UAV
[84] 2019 IoT Water (WSN) N/A Monitoring Create an IoT-based
Soil moisture monitoring system for
Temperature applications in precision
Humidity agriculture, such as con-
Rain Meter trolling pandemic disease
[85] 2021 IoT N/A GPS Replay Attack Controlling An architectural classifica-
RFID Buffer tion of prospective Iot
WSN Hijacking security threats and issues
Spoofing
Routing
[86] 2018 IoT Soil moisture MQTT N/A Monitoring The method is demonstrated
Light sensor XMPP Controlling by two case studies on
Water sensor AMQP SF in Turkey; one will be
Humidity Weather DDS utilized for smart wheat
CoAP production in Konya and
the other for smart green
housing in Antalya
[87] 2022 IoT PH Wi-Fi N/A Controlling Soil salinity mapping is
EC sensor Solid-state drive (SSD) Tracking detected and measured at
Temperature card the irrigation of SF
Table 6 (continued)
[88] 2019 IoT Soil Moisture LoRa N/A Monitoring An introduction of IoT
cameras WSN applications in agricul-
ture including industrial
IoT-based agricultural
software systems
[89] 2017 IoT Soil Moisture LAN N/A Monitoring Propose a scalable data
Raspberry Pi Controlling analysis framework
light sensor Tracking

[90] 2017 IoT GPS sensor WSN Distribution Attack Controlling this study presents a risk
MQTT Identity Matching Tracking analysis for user privacy
Wi-Fi Monitoring
[91] 2022 IoT Soil ZigBee N/A Monitoring IoT applications, benefits,
Rain sensor LoRa Controlling existing challenges, and
Lidar Tracking possible solutions in SF
Harvesting Robots
[92] 2017 IoT Digital Cameras N/A N/A Monitoring Classify different IoT-based
Hyperspectral applications and befit
plans for SF
[93] 2018 IoT UAVs WSN DDoS Controlling Cyber-attacks and is
ZigBee Crypto locker attacks Tracking properly matched to the
Wi-Fi Cryptowall Monitoring complexity level of the
3G technology
LoRA
[94] 2019 IoT Soil Sensor WSN N/A Monitoring Learning prediction rules
Leaf Sensor Controlling are used to process data in
Tracking a decision-making system
13
Table 6 (continued)
13
[95] 2021 IoT UAV WSN N/A Controlling An overview of the existing
UGVs Bluetooth Tracking Agriculture 4.0 landscape
Tractors RFID Monitoring is the goal of this study
Hand-Held Sensors Sigfox
Wi-Fi
ZigBee
[96] 2020 IoT UAV N/A N/A Controlling Robotics and artificial
UGV Tracking intelligence to create the
GPS Monitoring upcoming idea of agricul-
GNSS ture 5.0
GIS
[97] 2021 IoT Humidity, Moisture, Wi-Fi N/A Monitoring Identification through
Temperature ZigBee Controlling sensing, observation,
Radiation SigFox Tracking monitoring, and control
Raspberry Pi 5G will be used
Bluetooth
[98] 2020 IoT UAVs GPS Brute Force Monitoring The paper provides a sum-
GPS trackers Wi-Fi Trojan Horse Controlling mary of the important
Air Sensor RFID DoS Tracking current and future agricul-
Soil/crop infrastructure Botnets tural threats
Drones Hijacking, Spoofing
[99] 2021 IoT UAVs GPS N/A Monitoring Internet of Things, play in
Drones LPWAN Controlling advancing agriculture to
Barometer 5G Tracking satisfy expectations for
(LIDAR) Bluetooth the future
Flow Sensor Zigbee
Table 6 (continued)
[100] 2021 IoT UAV WSN N/A Monitoring Create a low-cost platform
Temperature LoRaWAN Controlling for using flying iot to
Humidity MQTT Tracking monitor all environmental
Rain Gauge ZigBee factors
Radiation GPRS
Soil Moisture 3G 4G
Drones Wi-Fi
[101] 2023 IoT Temperature Zigbee N/A Monitoring IoT has been used in farms
Humidity RFID to automate a variety of
Wind Speed WIFI agricultural processes
PH sensor Cellular
Light, Uavs network
RGB Camera (LTE)
Smart Drones
[102] 2023 IoT UAVs LoRa SQL Injection Monitoring Iot systems and the reliance
Trojans Controlling on reputable ethical hack-
Spyware Tracking ers to carry out simulated
Botnet attacks
DoS/DDoS
Wireless Jamming
13
13
Table 7 Devices/Sensors
Ref Devices/Sensors Functions
[82, 106] PH Sensor Used to keep track of the amount of nutrition in the soil and to sustain the germination and yield
[82, 106] Gas Sensor Monitor the poisonous gases, C
H4, CO2, and hydrogen gases
[79, 82] Weed seeker Weed identification and spraying
[107] [76, 79, 89, 94, 99, 100, Soil moisture sensor The amount of water in the soil is calculated using electrical conductivity
106]
[72, 79, 82, 100, 106] Temperature Sensor Measure the temperature of the environment and surrounding farms
[79, 82, 100, 106] Humidity Sensor Can measure the humidity and measure the effects on plant and photosynthesis in the smart farm
[82, 106] Motion Detector Notify the farmer if you observe any strange activity on the farm
[72] Infrared Sensors Used both passive and active sensors to operate. Radiation can be detected and emitted by active infrared
sensors. Sensors that detect passive infrared can only find radiation
[78] Drones Perform various tasks such as crop fertilization, planting, crop observation, and soil testing
[78, 92] 3D cameras, Crop conditions are monitored, plant height is measured, a health diagnostic is used, and fertilizer is applied
[82, 108] Water content sensors Measure the water level according to soil condition
[83, 95, 96, 100] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Spraying, sensing, harvesting, and mapping are just a few of the uses for UAVs
(UAVs)
[78] Robots Combining robotics and IoT can improve prediction performance, increase agricultural output, reduce farm
labor, and reduce fruit waste and pesticide use
of forms [105]. UAVs are widely used in SF for farmers to decisions making for the
productivity of crops and monitor crops in a straightforward way instead of traditional
methods [100]. UAVs are used for different purposes like spraying, sensing, harvesting,
and mapping [96]. Table 7 shows the devices and sensor technologies used and dis-
cussed in various articles.
4.1.1 Network and communication protocol
A communication protocol describes the communication methods between various dig-

ital devices, which are classified according to their purpose in the network [109]. A
key element of IoT technology, the IoT protocol stack enables hardware to transport
data in a structured and meaningful way [110]. Figure 14 will show IoT communication
protocols.
Due to their low cost, extensive coverage area, and low energy consumption as com-
pared with other long-distance communication technologies, a sizable variety of IoT tech-
nologies are used inside IoT applications [109, 110]. ZigBee, LoraWAN, Bluetooth, RFID,
SigFox, and other IoT communication technologies are examples. The wireless sensor net-
work and numerous protocols are then discussed. Table 8 provides the network protocols,
frequency bands, data rate and coverage of various technologies and protocols.
4.1.2 Domains
IoT SF encompasses a variety of monitoring, controlling, and tracking applications that

measure numerous parameters, including temperature, humidity, air quality, soil mois-
ture, water quality, fertilizer, and pest control location tracking. Controlling, monitor-
ing, and tracking are the SLR’s chosen domains. Most research is on tracking, control-
ling, and monitoring shown in Fig. 14 based on selected studies. A smart farm’s success
may depend on intelligent monitoring systems [95]. It is beneficial to obtain data using
various tools. Multiple sensors and monitoring are utilized to keep an eye on farm con-
ditions. It enables farmers to adopt faster ideas that can be put into action right away.
Fig. 14 Network and Communication Protocol
13
13
Table 8 Network and Communication Protocol
Ref Network Protocols Frequency Bands Data Rate Coverage
[15, 106] LoraWAN 868–900 MHz 0.3–50 kb/s up to 5 km (urban) and 15 km (rural)
[86, 100, 106, 111] MQTT 2.4 GHz 250 kbps N/A
[78, 112] 5G 450 MHz to 6 GHz up to 20 Gigabits-per-second 1 to 3 miles
(Gbps)
[1, 106, 113, 114] RFID 860–960 MHz 40–160 kbit/s up to 100 m
[1, 81, 106] SigFox 200 kHz 100–600 Kb/s 10 km (urban) and 50 km (rural)
[1, 99, 72, 76, 100, 115, 116] ZigBee 2.4 GHz 20–250 Kb/s up to 100 m
[1, 76, 84, 100, 106] Wi-Fi 5 GHz-60 GHz 1 Mb/s-7 Gb/s up to 100 m
[1, 72, 99, 106] Bluetooth 24 GHz 1–24 Mb/s up to 30 m
[106, 117] WiMAX 5 GHz-66 GHz 1 Mb/s-1 Gb/s up to 50 km
[72, 79, 95, 118] WSN 2.4 GHz 11 Mbps Less than 100 m
[1, 76] 6LoWPAN 2.4 GHz 868 MHz: 250 kb/s 10 –100 m
4.2 RQ2: What problems are faced by a farmer in IoT‑based smart Farming?
Most modern smart agriculture applications are constructed using IoT technology, so
it’s vital to remember that they might directly inherit its security vulnerabilities [82].
Farmers that employ automated systems are concerned about their data being leaked or
stolen by adversaries. Therefore, the security of data is essential, and deals with tech-
nology suppliers should include specific terms. Even if non-personal data is processed
by most SF approaches, linking such data to a particular piece of personally identifiable
information (PII) poses serious security issues [15].
For instance, livestock data that identifies their owner explicitly; and agricultural condi-
tions associated with farmers’ private information. Privacy rules should be implemented
in this case to partially prevent the processing of personal data. When SF machinery, like
drones or tractors, can monitor its operators, additional problems can emerge (Fig. 15).
Figure 16 depicts the Raspberry Pi installed on a houseplant that includes sensors to
monitor its conditions. Figure 15 shows how a DoS attack can stop a Raspberry Pi from
connecting to the network by intercepting and disrupting network traffic between the Rasp-
berry Pi and the cloud (Microsoft Azure). Smart communication technologies’ quick devel-
opment and uptake, IoT integration, and security, business digitization, and automation
introduce new dangers and risks to the worldwide market. Potential security challenges
inside the decentralized, dynamic cyber-physical environment can result from assaults on
various smart agricultural systems [98].
The networks of associated businesses could be severely disrupted by threats and
attacks of this kind. Furthermore, for its stakeholders in the highly mechanized agricultural
landscape, smart technologies and remote administration are something new, most of the
unidentified threats in this sector are closely tied to worries that currently exist in other
industries. These risks primarily relate to data loss, integrity, and cybersecurity [118].
Cyber-attacks are attempts to take advantage of computing systems and networks for
several reasons. These assaults frequently involve malicious software to change data, algo-
rithms, or reasoning [119]. In Fig. 17 Cyberattacks can take many different types and are
anticipated to grow in complexity and size [93]. The reasons for such attacks are antici-
pated to go beyond the current risk posed by individuals with activist goals to potential
risks in the future posed by nation-states, organized crime, and infiltration. Agriculture will
Fig. 15 Domains of IoT
13
Fig. 16 System Architecture & Attack Surface
eventually become a dependable target; it is only a matter of time. Because this tendency is
already beginning to emerge in other industries like finance and manufacturing.
4.2.1 Insider data leakage attacks
One of the most challenging attacks to recognize is this one. Because the genuine system
member who committed the crime is the criminal [80]. The attacker may be a current or
previous user who has legitimate access to the system’s data and access credentials and
can execute several attacks. The most vulnerable during transit, data or information from
Fig. 17 Cyber Attacks on Smart Farming
13
IoT devices’ sensors is collected [15]. If proper security protocols are not followed, anyone
willing to use credentials privately or sell access to a buyer might easily steal the informa-
tion [120]. It refers to the unapproved transfer of data from an organization by a source (a
person or a device) inside the business to an unauthorized outside place. The confidential-
ity of the data is violated by this type of attack [19].
4.2.2 False data injection attacks
This attack aims to modify or falsify data used to make crucial real-time decisions based
on the assumption that the opponent is aware of the system’s setup. For example, inac-
curate data on the amount of soil moisture can lead to overwatering, which will harm the
crops [15]. These attacks aim to inject malicious data or control and direct instructions into
the system. This kind of attack focuses on data integrity [19].
4.2.3 Misinformation Attacks
The goal of this attack is to compromise data integrity. Attackers may spread false reports
about a smart farm, saying that livestock or crops appear to be suffering an outbreak. The
genuine reports that the targeted smart farm has made public are imitated in these fake data
reports. It will take a lot of time, work, and money to refute the material that was released
[15].
4.2.4 Cyber terrorism
Terrorists now have new options to attack places that were previously out of reach or
impossible to hit because of the increased use of connected digital systems in the agri-
cultural industry. Given that cyberterrorism is a low-cost operation with significant profit
potential, agroterrorism presents hazards that are simply too great to ignore. Finding ways
to promote openness and trust within SF is therefore essential, as is safeguarding important
resources [15].
4.2.5 Cloud data leakage attacks
When information about customers of a company or the services it offers is made public,
users’ or parties’ privacy has been violated. Because there are cloud data centers around
the world, virtual machines may occasionally be set up there. [19]. There may be a need for
greater security when storing data in data centers abroad. These nations might relax their
strict business security regulations. Additionally, the data stored on servers under their con-
trol may be intercepted or collected by their governments. Due to these reasons, nations
have started passing laws regulating the location of sensitive data.
The cloud’s ecosystem is robust, diversified, decentralized, and heterogeneous. The
cloud is a challenging target due to the vast amount of distributed resources. However,
Attackers have used resources like on-demand services, auto-scaling, and self-provisioning
to their advantage since the advent of new cloud technologies like these, making the cloud
one of their most attractive targets [15].
13
4.2.6 Radio frequency jamming attacks
Radiofrequency communication, such as cellular or satellite networks, is frequently used

by SF equipment [15]. Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) are frequently used by
intelligent agricultural equipment to increase efficiency with tools and processes including
path planning, auto steering, seeding, and spray rates. The GNSS, which is created by com-
bining real-time kinematics (RTK) technology and GPS, instantly improves the accuracy
of Position data. To disrupt GNSS, attackers may employ several distributed low-power
jammers for malicious purposes to disable SF equipment over a wide area. Due to the open
nature of wireless channels and advancements in jamming-resistant wireless networking
devices, attacks are possible [19]. Attacks of this nature damage system accessibility in the
SF area, like a greenhouse.
4.2.7 Malware injection attacks
Malware injection attacks, in which an attacker inserts a virus into a smart connected
device, are one of the most common attacks in SF. In large-scale systems, malware is a
widespread threat since it typically executes and spreads automatically via the system,
which makes it a very alluring target for attackers. Due to the widespread adoption of SF,
more farms connect to the Internet [15].
4.2.8 Denial of service (DoS)Attacks
A denial of service (DoS) attack, like the one launched in 2016 using the Mirai botnet, can
permanently be established by deploying IoT devices in SF situations [15]. At that time,
one of the most significant DoS attacks was recently launched using an army of dummy
CCTVs. In a farm, there are usually many interconnected nodes and groups; hence, in the
context of SF, similar attacks are possible [19]. These attacks could stop legal cyber ser-
vices in other domains and disrupt the regular operations of multiple components within
a single farm. To prevent individuals or devices from accessing a node, server, communi-
cation channel, or network without their permission. For instance, Radio Frequency (RF)
Jamming overburdens the RF frequency used by a network to prohibit linked nodes from
obtaining communication services [121, 122].
In August 2016, the Mirai malware was first launched. The websites of computer secu-
rity expert Brain Krebs and the French web provider were the targets of two DoS attacks in
September 2016 that used the Mirai malware. The following month, it attacked the hosting
company Dyn and brought many websites to a temporary suspension, including Netflix,
Twitter, GitHub, and Reddit [71]. Mirai begins the DoS attack against the target servers
by creating a poorly configured network of IoT nodes. Two months after the Mirai source
code was released, the number of infected nodes, known as both instances, had more than
doubled. The same smart node vulnerabilities are still being exploited by Mirai and its
variations today.
4.2.9 Side channel attacks
Side channel attacks are those that get there rather than information derived from how a
system is implemented from a system’s implementation vulnerabilities [80]. One of the IoT
13
use cases is SF; therefore, it carries over some farm area or IoT risks., such as side-channel
attacks [15, 123]. Timing channel attacks by adversaries, for instance, may employ two
attack vectors: computation time and timing patterns of cache hits and misses. patterns of
energy use, potential leaks of electromagnetic energy, and acoustic and sound channels can
all be used as additional attack launch sites [19].
4.2.10 Phishing attacks
The attacker sends the email to numerous people on an IoT network to get access to it. The
hacker gains complete access to that particular IoT network when a user submits his cre-
dentials to the URL reached by that email [80].
4.2.11 Third‑Party Attacks
It occurs when a device is affected by an adversary using a third-party supplier or partner

who has control over the system and data. Attacks from outside parties may threaten the
system’s integrity or confidentiality [19].
4.2.12 Cloud computing attack
Utilize inadequate cloud features like self-provisioning, on-demand, and automatic scala-
bility to benefit from their resources. For instance, a virtual machine that has been attacked
might easily infect other virtual machines through the cloud. Attackers may try to damage
nonrepudiation, trust, or integrity [19].
4.2.13 Spoofing attacks
Vulnerability in the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) is the target of the ARP spoofing
attack. Attacks of this nature are typically conducted via a local area network (LAN) [74].
In this case, the attacker creates a fake gateway’s MAC address and tries to convince the
target to transmit frames to the spoofing address rather than the original gateway. ARP
doesn’t make requests; it only receives responses. Also, since standard ARP doesn’t include
authentication techniques, there is no way to confirm a sender. ARP spoofing allows for
the manipulation and recording of data traffic. The use of ARP spoofing as a Man-in-the-
Middle attack to intercept traffic is possible. It can also be used for session hijacking and
denial of service [85].
4.2.14 Man‑in‑The‑Middle Attack
In this scenario, a criminal assumes the character of a man who appears as an actual user of
an IoT system, similar to how two real network users engage [80]. In reality, a hacker who
communicates directly with both of them and has the authority to oversee and influence
the communication is in direct conversation with them [124]. Transparently record, replay,
and, in some situations, edit data sent via a connection [19]. These attacks may compro-
mise the system’s confidentiality or integrity [98].
13
4.2.15 Location tracking attack
An attacker might link later location updates to the same user. If a person often changes
their location. The identity-matching attack is a more common tracking attack [90].
4.3 RQ3 What solutions are available in IoT‑based Smart Farming?
The IoT monitoring system for agriculture has numerous sensors installed [125]. The data
that the sensors collect is sent to the IoT intelligent gateway, which connects these sensors
via wired or wireless sensor networks like Zigbee [73]. The gateway then delivers these
data to the IoT system platform through a wide-area network, such as the Internet or a
mobile communication network, after processing them. Data is transmitted between the
system platform and the gateway using MQTT or HTTP publish/subscribe method [126].
Different IoT solutions are available in IoT-bases SF shown in Figure 18.
4.3.1 Weather monitoring
The most crucial element in SF is the weather since it affects how well a crop will grow. It
records the crop’s success or failure [95]. [127]. Therefore, the weather is a valuable tool
for enhancing the agricultural process [128]. For instance, air pressure is measured using
barometric sensors. How quickly agriculture grows is influenced by temperature, humid-
ity, wind, air pressure, and other crucial meteorological factors. These data are collected
by wired or wireless sensors and delivered to cloud servers [129]. The gathered data will
be compared to the climate, and analytical tools will be used to determine the fundamental
strategies to promote agricultural growth [53].
Fig. 18 Domains of IoT in Smart Farming
13
4.3.2 Disease monitoring
The digitization of some IoT agricultural applications, such as disease detection and
monitoring, enables farmers to rapidly make well-informed decisions [130]. Techniques
for image processing and machine learning are utilized to keep track of the health of the
plants. A system for monitoring IoT and tracking wheat illnesses has been created [99].
4.3.3 Soil monitoring
For plants to grow, the soil is essential. The state of the plant must be assessed to see if
it is suitable. A farmer keeps the soil moist for the plant to produce fruitful results from
various species [95]. They analyze the soil to determine its nutritional level to keep the
nutrients in the soil. This terminology has many advantages for farmers, including rais-
ing agricultural productivity and quality, reducing crop loss risk, and reducing agricul-
tural products’ cost and production time. The optimum plant breed can be chosen with
the help of soil management. It helps to determine whether the soil needs fertilizer [76].
The pH determines the acidity and alkalinity of the soil. The concentration of hydro-
gen ions in the soil is measured by pH. Due to the high concentration of hydrogen ions,
the pH scale is a logarithmic scale of hydrogen ions [87]. With high pH indicating low
hydrogen ion concentration, the acidity decreases by a factor of pH for every unit of pH
increase. The presence of hydrogen ions causes the acidity to increase; as a result, a low
pH results in higher acidity and a high alkalinity with a low hydrogen ion concentration.
The soil maps make it easier to determine when the soil is in good condition. Different
technologies and techniques for the appropriateness of the seed and sowing time have
been created by numerous researchers. These technologies assist farmers in assessing
the number of fertilizers needed to help them monitor the soil’s health, including its
pH, salinity, water-holding capacity, organic carbon content, and electrical conductivity
[131].
Various sensors are now used in SF, including soil moisture and remote sensors.
These remote sensing using the following products:
• (AMSR2) The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-2 was launched in

May 2012, and data processing began in July 2012.
• (SMAP) Soil Moisture Active Passive: was launched on 31 July 2015.
• (MODIS) The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spector-radiometer instrument
was developed by NASA and launched in December 1999.
With a wireless soil moisture sensor that can also be used to determine the depth of
the soil for seeding, they began keeping track of the moisture in the soil [99]. Several
robots are in operation in any area where the GPS is used to make location mapping
easier. Radiation detectors are made of light-emitting diodes. All that said, new tech-
nologies contribute to evaluating soils, and crop growth and yield are monitored. Under-
standing the amount of water retained in the gaps between soil particles, which may be
estimated by measuring soil moisture, would improve our understanding of soil tem-
perature, nutrients, density, and viscosity [100]. With the help of soil mapping, you can
more effectively coordinate soil characteristics like seed compatibility, sowing timing,
and even planting depth because some crops are deeply rooted while others are not [91].
13
4.3.4 Water monitoring
It is the most well-known and fundamental feature of agriculture. To select the optimal
water distribution and determine how much time and quantity is needed, data is gath-
ered through many kinds of sensors and examined by farmers and virtual machines [77].
The quantity of water in the soil necessary for plant growth is measured using several
kinds of sensors. These sensors collect farm information and identify the most effective
strategy for plant growth [76].
These variables will help farmers optimize water use and reduce irrigation costs
[132]. Agriculture requires regular watering, whether it be through irrigation or relying
on rainfall. The rainfall reading from the relevant sensor is used for decision-making for
the farmers [100].
4.3.5 Environmental condition monitoring
Readings of the relevant sensor’s humidity and temperature at a different phase. Tem-
peratures in the early summer (June to September) range from 25 °C to 40 °C, while
they fall below 20 °C in the fall and winter. Another observation is that the coldest
months of the year, December and January have a low single-digit temperature, while
July and August have the highest temperatures. The relationship between temperature
and the average humidity is usually linked to the amount of wind, sunshine, and temper-
ature. There are the minimum and maximum temperatures that affect how a crop grows.
As a result, the following examples of Sets produced by human and Machine activities
can be motivated by the observed temperature data [100]:
• At minimum temperatures (e.g. early spring), farmers should focus on seed germina-
tion and water wisely since this is a good time for growing crops.
• Planting activities should stop in periods with temperatures below the minimum
(such as winter or autumn).
• At the highest temperatures (e.g. summer), Water sprinklers in farms should be used
continuously during the summer to increase plant watering.
• Farmers are encouraged to think about different techniques, such as spraying insecti-
cides on plants, as high humidity and temperatures are more favorable to the growth
of crop pests and illnesses.
• In the case of high humidity and temperature conditions, plantings and seasonal
grains are advised for the region. These include apricots, apples, figs, peaches,
grapes, and almonds.
4.3.6 Crop and plant growth monitoring
Crop management is related to agricultural operations that include planting seeds, con-
tinuous crop maintenance, harvesting, storage, and distributing crops, as well as prepar-
ing plants (specifically, trees) for the following year. To fulfill the increasing demands
for food, clothing, and raw resources as a result of the rapid increase in global popula-
tion, crop management must be optimized to sustainably boost production. Growing any
crop with quality everywhere in the world depends on various factors [76]. To maintain
13
good agricultural management, it is critical to regularly evaluate the aspects relevant to

crop growth and performance throughout the developmental phases.
As agricultural technology has advanced, farmers now have access to technologies
that facilitate crop tracking, mapping of field variation, and decision-making procedures.
Worldwide, it is believed that diseases and infestations of crop pests, such as weeds,
insects, rodents, pathogens, and insects, play a significant role in lowering agricultural
production [95]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide innovative solutions that
promptly identify Seedlings, crop infestations, and pathogens are all addressed, as are ways
to reduce significant agriculture production damages. For crop management, smart recog-
nition systems that employ AI-based image processing methods are essential since they
allow for the earlier diagnosis of such abnormalities before they spread and seriously harm
crops. The technology gives farmers instant diagnostic feedback and remedies with preven-
tative measures after the infective agent has been identified.
There have been many IoT-based recognition systems investigated and created [99]. A
high pollination level, particularly when the weather changes, is necessary for crop yield
monitoring. Prediction of seeds is also essential.
4.3.7 Temperature monitoring
A farm’s IoT sensor systems collect enormous volumes of environmental data, which is
supplied hourly to ground gateways and then collected and sent by drone to the cloud for
archival and analysis every 12 h. It is stated how the monitoring system in SF measures sun
radiation, soil moisture, humidity, temperature, and humidity. To execute precision agricul-
ture, environmental monitoring has been integrated with man-made and automated sets of
operations. [100].
4.3.8 Humidity monitoring
The amount of humidity in the air is measured using some humidity sensors. Too much
humidity inhibits the growth of plant cells [88].
4.3.9 Aerial crop monitoring
It is difficult and expensive to promptly monitor a large field to identify problems with soil
variance, fungus, and irrigation. Farm monitoring is now less costly and much more exact
due to low-cost drones connected with various types of sensors of controlled-cost Proces-
sor cores, GPS, and radio technologies [77]. As a result, farmers can utilize time series
animations to monitor their crops’ growth and soil variation problems, resulting in more
effective crop management and an increase in production and quality standards.
4.3.10 Drilling, seeding, and spraying
There are three key issues with remote sensing of weeds, insects, and diseases. The first
factor is identification accuracy, which is crucial for choosing the appropriate action. The
second is how to keep track of a field when epidemic spots circulate randomly. The third
issue is how to automate the procedure so that it can be used to examine hundreds to thou-
sands of images, each of which only covers a small area. Weed detection may be neces-
sary when using broad-spectrum herbicides like glyphosate, but it is essential when using
13
other herbicides, including 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Image processing automation

is critical to reducing the cost of relying on UAS technology. But to increase agriculture’s
sustainability, multiple weed control techniques from integrated weed management may be
used, and their implementation needs significantly more accurate weed identification [92].
Drones in agriculture are becoming incredibly popular and extremely useful, with sig-
nificant IoT SF applications. Remotely controlled autonomous tractors designed to perform
tasks like drilling, sowing, and spraying are already being developed and used [77].
4.3.11 Fertilization and pest control
It stands to reason that preventing and avoiding an infestation will be more profitable
than trying to eradicate an infectious agent from a productive area that has already been
infected. As a result, IoT-based robotics, sensors, and methodologies have been created
[76]. Designed in recent years to deliver more effective management of crop pests and dis-
ease solutions to the agriculture business [95]. They give farmers the ability to dramatically
reduce the amount of time spent on physical labor and associated expenses. The estimation
of nutrients in the field makes use of numerous modern enabling technologies, such as
GPS, GIS, and variable rate technology [99]. The best way to increase agricultural produc-
tion is through fertilizers, which can only be utilized in conjunction with IoT instruments
and technologies [133].
4.3.12 Greenhouse illumination control
This controlled environment is produced in the greenhouse. Because of this controlled

climate, crops can be grown year-round anywhere in the world [134]. This technology is
adopted via various new tools and features, including wireless communication, mobile
devices, and other internet gadgets [99].
4.3.13 Harvesting systems
The previous agricultural procedures have been observed and managed now it’s time to
gather the fruits and vegetables. Manual harvesting could be difficult, pulled, and rarely a
failure process. Additionally, it is essential to consider the rising labor cost and the decreas-
ing supply of skilled workers ready to do repetitive tasks under often difficult circum-
stances. Due to this, businesses involved in agriculture are moving toward automating farm
tasks, which could include farm harvesting robots [95].
There are two types of robotic harvesting systems.
1) Every fruit and vegetable is harvested in bulk.

2) Selective, only harvesting fruit and vegetables that are ready to be gathered.
An automated harvesting robot, focusing on the latter, usually involves three key
procedures.
a) Using sensors and computer vision techniques, identify and locate vegetables and fruits
and avoid obstacles.
b) The robot arm moves to the identified target position.
13
c) After a careful harvest using an end-effector device (such as a picking gripper), the fruit
or vegetable is placed in the appropriate basket without endangering the target or the
environment.
4.3.14 Location tracking
The user and other stakeholders can be assured of the origin, location, and life history of
a product through tracking, to make it possible to gather a variety of data [70] in the value
chain and supply. Activities can detect and monitor the movements of animals to prevent
theft and wild attacks [97].
4.3.15 Supply chain traceability
IoT makes it possible to track the food supply chain automatically. To track, monitor, and
manage information regarding shipments moving across the entire food chain, data must be
collected, transferred, and published centrally. [76]. The process of gathering crops, pro-
cessing food, transporting, and supplying to the market’s wholesaler are all parts of the
food supply chain. Due to enzymatic, oxidative, and microbial attacks, harvested foods
decompose as soon as they are taken out of the land. Bacteria, mold, yeast, moisture, tem-
perature, and chemical reactions are a few of these. To improve cooperation among supply
chain partners, the procedure of the food supply chain has changed in a new way thanks to
IoT and cloud computing [135].
Supply chain management (SCM) has been significantly improved by automation based
on IoT, RFID, and WSN. These technologies collect data relevant to the food supply chain
by, for example, identifying tags-bearing things or people and sensing the surroundings
[136]. Among other things, it aims to improve food authenticity and provenance traceabil-
ity, strengthen stakeholder relationships, and provide customers with trust that the products
are high-quality [95].
The content highlights online risks and weaknesses associated with the agricultural IoT
monitoring system, including sensors, gateways, networks for communication, as well as
platforms. Safeguarding automated agricultural setups against cybersecurity risks, data
integrity especially confidentiality, including IoT system attacks represents a few of the
biggest challenges.
These issues are able to be solved by maximizing SF security and creating a comprehen-
sive attack-security mapping. This covers secure communication protocols like MQTT or
HTTP publish/subscribe, IoT intelligent gateway security, and cybersecurity infrastructure
improvement. For better comprehension, the curriculum emphasizes assessing weather,
disease, soil, water, as well as environmental variables with sensors and monitoring sys-
tems. SF system security and privacy are improved by integrating image analysis and
machine learning for disease diagnosis, soil moisture sensors enabling water management,
including environmental condition monitoring providing crop-specific suggestions.
5 Discussion
This section details numerous IoT farm applications, sensors, and equipment. The results
of this study have been summarized in an agriculture hierarchy.
13
5.1 IoT‑based Smart Farming hierarchy
By developing an IoT-based farm system, the research findings have been summarized.
The design hierarchy consists of six main parts. There are Agriculture applications,
devices/sensors, network/communication protocols, Multilayered architecture, security
attacks, and SF in different countries.
Devices/sensors that provide valuable data by sensing, monitoring, controlling, and
tracking in multiple fields of SF through WSN [137]. Different sensors (humidity, tem-
perature, soil moisture), drones, 3D cameras, robots, and unmanned vehicles were used
to collect data and perform the various agricultural operations in IoT-based SF. The
function of devices/sensors was discussed in 4.1.
For the user or farmer perspective described in 4.1.1, data acquired by sensing and
monitoring equipment is sent to other platforms using communication protocols (LoraWan,
Sigfox, ZigBee, RFID, Bluetooth, WiMax, MQTT, and Wi-Fi). Security concerns exist
at many levels of IoT-based agricultural systems and must be addressed. Users encoun-
ter numerous challenges due to insufficient security, including data loss and other on-field
parameters. IoT privacy and security issues have been broadly discussed in 4.2. Agriculture
applications monitor, control, and track many parameters of smart farms, greenhouses, and
animals. 4.3 discusses IoT-based agriculture applications and related sub-domains.
IoT includes agricultural drones, which have cost-effective drones with fewer sensors
that allow farmers more alternatives to, among other things, boost yields and decrease
postharvest losses. Hydroponic and small-scale aquaponics systems are another IoT
application area for smart farms [92]. Smart farms are becoming more prevalent in urban
areas due to their ability to monitor various nutrient solution parameters and enhance
plant growth, productivity, and quality [98]. Due to possible improper or unlawful mod-
ifications in the dependability of data or resources, information across agricultural or SF
systems may no longer be legitimate or dependable. Because there is no guarantee that
the information is sufficient for its intended purpose, the communicated data or infor-
mation between devices and/or individuals participating in an agricultural procedure or
enterprise can result in identity or financial fraud.
When using several communication devices in an IoT-based farm system or SF, data
may travel through multiple links from source to destination devices and protocols.
Continuous privacy loss and information leaks are common causes of potential confi-
dentiality difficulties. Unauthorized access to vital information as a result of a confiden-
tiality breach could lead to stolen information and pose a major risk to the users of the
concerned farm system’s right to privacy. The gathering of data on the kinds and poten-
tial applications of equipment for agricultural projects. These flaws can be exploited to
weaken system security, obtain personal information, and access resources and produc-
tion guidelines. Theft and vandalism may occur from a privacy violation.
For continued influence in the actual world, an SF environment is built for real-
time or almost real-time operations. The installed smart agricultural network can have
its operations suspended or services made unavailable to farmers by an attacker. The
absence of the offered services might cause business disruption, potential consumer loss
of confidence, and revenue loss. Authenticity verifies that specific information from a
reliable/official source has been authenticated. Attackers with identities that resemble
legitimate or official people can enter the SF system. Possible outcomes include data
loss, corruption, modification, service loss, connectivity for devices, and even the cor-
ruption or obliteration of smart agricultural agriculture systems.
13
Fig. 19 IoT-Based Smart Farming Hierarchy
Through IEEE Xplore, Science Direct, Springer, MDPI, ACM Digital Library, and Tay-
lor & Francis Online, a search string was conducted. We found the majority of the research
publications on IoT agriculture in these digital libraries, according to search engine sta-
tistics. Although incorporating articles from lesser-known publications and conferences
helped the primary research’s caliber, this shows that the quantity of studies pertinent to
IoT has increased. The Heirachy of IoT-based smart farming is shown in Fig. 19.
5.2 Open issues and challenges in Smart Farming
Farming technology has improved accuracy and efficiency and reduced time constraints.
While smart agriculture boosts agricultural output, there are still challenges in using these
technologies.
13
5.2.1 Hardware maintenance and limited energy resources
The hardware for the perception layer is installed in challenging environments like
farms and mines that encounter harsh weather including high temperatures, rain, strong
winds, and high humidity, among other things. As a result, these physical devices’ elec-
tronic circuitry sustains destruction [138]. As a result, sturdier hardware devices capa-
ble of withstanding harsh environments must be designed. Furthermore, these devices
operate for an extended time with insufficient battery power. Alternative energy-efficient
end-device solutions are also necessary because it is difficult to replace a battery quickly
in the event of a program failure, especially in remote areas.
5.2.2 Lack of financial resources and technology costs
If farmers did not receive the anticipated production because of unanticipated disasters
like drought, flood, pests, and illnesses, financial backers could provide enough loans.
Because implementing technology and devices costs a lot of money, farmers confront
financial issues when they seek beyond traditional instruments.
5.2.3 Lack of transparency in data license terms
Given how few farmers are aware of the laws governing data ownership, usage, and
access, it is likely that there was only a cursory discussion of these issues before sign-
ing a contract for agricultural technology or services. Legal contracts that are opaque
typically cause people to feel unhappy and irritated. Thus, whether using a machine or
downloading an app, one agrees to its terms of use. Links to other policy documents,
including the agricultural [139].
5.2.4 Literacy status of farmers
The education level of farmers is one of the most challenging obstacles to technology
integration in developing nations. The knowledge necessary for tool management com-
prises both academic and technical talents. The knowledge a farmer has helps his or her
ability to process information and, as a result, make decisions using precision agricul-
tural technology that allows farmers to use technology [68].
5.2.5 Scalability
Depending on agriculture, many IoT devices and sensors require an intelligent IoT man-
agement system to identify and manage each node.
5.2.6 Availability
The percentage of time a network is available when needed is defined as availability.

For example, if a network service provider claims 99.999% availability, the web will be
13
unavailable for 5.26 min in a year. One must comprehend how much time the applica-
tion can be unattainable [138].
5.2.7 Security and privacy
Due to a lack of attention, privacy and security issues are still a concern in all smart agri-
culture operations [15].
The discussion section incorporates the IoT-based Smart Farming order that functions
like an all-encompassing structure, encompassing many facets such as security attacks,
innovative farming implementations throughout countries, agricultural applications,
devices and sensors, networks and communication protocols, and multilayered architec-
ture. The hierarchy shows the intricate connection among devices, sensors, communication
protocols, and layered architecture across an IoT-enabled agricultural environment.
This technique might have broader applications and repercussions beyond the research.
The extensive study of IoT related to agriculture shows how technology might change
farming worldwide. Farmers may use sensors, drones, as well as robots to monitor, control,
and track innovative farm factors. Multilayered design and different communication proto-
cols provide seamless data flow and a resilient, integrated system.
The argument additionally tackles Smart Farming’s problems, allowing for generaliza-
tions. Hardware maintenance, energy scarcity, budgetary limits, data licensing openness,
farmers’ literacy, scalability, availability, security, and privacy concerns are beyond the
scope from this research. These issues highlight the requirement for resilient equipment,
financial support to farmers, transparent governance of data, improved technology integra-
tion education, adaptable IoT management systems, and increased security and privacy
throughout each innovative agriculture operation.
6 Conclusion
A comprehensive analysis of the literature was undertaken, as well as a discussion of high-

quality research articles on IoT-based agriculture that had been published. The 37 studies
for the review were chosen using a methodical procedure. We evaluated some IoT farm
apps, sensors/devices, and communication protocols. The fact that many governments sup-
port this area of research and several countries have IoT farm rules is the most exciting
aspect. Apart from that, the framework contextualizes all of the critical components of
IoT-based agriculture. Finally, Future trends for researchers in IoT-based agriculture have
been investigated. This study offers a comprehensive assessment of IoT adoption in smart
agriculture, highlighting essential components as well as the applicability of IoT solutions.
According to the review provided in this paper, IoT solutions are becoming more relevant
for SF. In this study, we focused on SF security, which is an essential concern in the area.
This study examines similar cybersecurity issues in San Francisco. It is crucial to identify
and get rid of contaminated devices as soon as you can give the rise in IoT devices.
The study optimises SF security via mapping attacks on security aspects, presents a sys-
tematic analysis of confidentiality and safety in SF, as well as agricultural cyber-attacks.
The study covers IoT with SF until 2023 by exploring computer networks, machine learn-
ing, artificial intelligence deep learning, blockchain technology, and fuzzy logic. The paper
explains device-user communication technologies and their significance in developing
products and SF issues. Researchers, professionals, and policymakers looking at IoT-based
13
SF security can benefit from this paper. This research study discussed Internet of Things
(IoT) and how Smart Farming has adopted IoT technology in their overall processes. Fur-
thermore, this research also presents how farmers utilize these technologies to monitor
crop production, evaluate soil moisture, and deploy drones to assist with operations like
pesticide spraying.
6.1 Limitations
Finally, this SLR has some limitations given here:
• This SLR only prefers research in articles that are written in English.
• The research in studies returned some studies based on selected articles cross-refer-
ence.
• All studies that included research in AI, ML, DL, and Cloud computing are eliminated
from this SLR.
• Only IoT-based research studies are included in this SLR.
• Only Six databases, including IEEE Xplore, Taylor & Francis Online, Springer, MDPI,
Science Direct, and ACM Digital Library, have been explored.
6.2 Future direction
The limitation of this research study was that only six databases, including IEEE Xplore,
Taylor & Francis Online, Springer, Science Direct, MDPI, and ACM Digital Library, have
been explored. Future research studies should consider other databases such as PubMed
and Coherence.
Data availability Not applicable in this case.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest None.
References
1. Navarro E, Costa N, Pereira A (2020) A systematic review of IoT solutions for smart farming. Sensors
20(15):4231
2. Doshi J, Patel T, Bharti SK (2019) Smart Farming using IoT, a solution for optimally monitoring
farming conditions. Procedia Comput Sci 160:746–751
3. Gupta A, Singh UB, Sahu PK, Paul S, Kumar A, Malviya D, Singh S, Kuppusamy P, Singh P, Paul
D, Rai JP, Singh HV, Manna MC, Crusberg TC, Kumar A, Saxena AK (2022) Linking soil microbial
diversity to modern agriculture practices: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(5):3141
4. Dholu M, Ghodinde KA (2018, May) Internet of Things (IoT) for precision agriculture application.
In: 2018 2nd International conference on trends in electronics and informatics (ICOEI). IEEE, pp
339–342
5. Hassan SI, Alam MM, Illahi U, Ghamdi MAA, Almotiri SH, Su’ud MM (2021) A systematic review
on monitoring and advanced control strategies in smart agriculture. IEEE Access 9:32517–32548
6. Yaseen M, Shahzad MS, Khan FU, Luqman M, Saleem U, Nasir S (2022) Public sector advisory
services for rice productivity: a case study of farmers’ awareness in Tehsil Shakargarh of Pakistan.
Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 38(1)
13
7. Hussain A, Akhtar W, Jabbar A (2022) Risk management for small farmers in Pakistan: a review. Pak
J Agric Sci 59(2):247–259
8. Jatoi FZ (2020) Agriculture in Pakistan and it’s impact on economic growth
9. Zia H, Rehman A, Harris NR, Fatima S, Khurram M (2021) An experimental comparison of iot-based
and traditional irrigation scheduling on a flood-irrigated subtropical lemon farm. Sensors 21(12):4175
10. Ullah W, Nafees M, Khurshid M, Nihei T (2019) Assessing farmers’ perspectives on climate change
for effective farm-level adaptation measures in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Environ Monit Assess
191(19):1–18
11. Fahad S, Wang J (2020) Climate change, vulnerability, and its impacts in rural Pakistan: a review.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(2):1334–1338
12. Ahmad A, Shahid M, Khalid S, Zaffar H, Naqvi T, Pervez A, Bilal M, Ali MA, Abbas G, Nasim W
(2018) Residues of endosulfan in cotton growing area of Vehari, Pakistan: an assessment of knowl-
edge and awareness of pesticide use and health risks. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(20):20079–20091
13. Tao W, Zhao L, Wang G, Liang R (2021) Review of the Internet of Things communication technolo-
gies in smart agriculture and challenges. Comput Electron Agric 189:106352
14. Kumar TU, Periasamy A (2021) IoT based smart farming (E-FARM)’S. Int J Recent Adv Multidiscip
Top 2(4):85–87
15. Gupta M, Abdelsalam M, Khorsandroo S, Mittal S (2020) Security and privacy in smart farming:
challenges and opportunities. IEEE Access 8:34564–34584
16. Van der Burg S, Bogaardt MJ, Wolfert S (2019) Ethics of smart farming: current questions and direc-
tions for responsible innovation towards the future. NJAS Wageningen J Life Sci 90:100289
17. Gaikwad SV, Vibhute AD, Kale KV, Mehrotra SC (2021) An innovative IoT based system for preci-
sion farming. Comput Electron Agric 187:106291
18. Shaikh TA, Mir WA, Rasool T, Sofi S (2022) Machine learning for smart agriculture and precision
farming: towards making the fields talk. Arch Comput Methods Eng 29(7):4557–4597
19. Yazdinejad A, Zolfaghari B, Azmoodeh A, Dehghantanha A, Karimipour H, Fraser E, Green AG,
Russell C, Duncan EA (2021) A review on security of smart farming and precision agriculture: secu-
rity aspects, attacks, threats and countermeasures. Appl Sci 11(16):7518
20. Malik A, Kushwah R (2022) A survey on next generation IoT networks from green IoT perspective.
Int J Wirel Inf Netw 1(29):36–57
21. Jerhamre E, Carlberg CJC, van Zoest V (2022) Exploring the susceptibility of smart farming: identi-
fied opportunities and challenges. Smart Agric Technol 2:100026
22. Dhanaraju M, Chenniappan P, Ramalingam K, Pazhanivelan S, Kaliaperumal R (2022) Smart farm-
ing: internet of things (IoT)-based sustainable agriculture. Agriculture 12(1745):10
23. Khanna A, Kaur S (2020) Internet of things (IoT), applications and challenges: a comprehensive
review. Wireless Pers Commun 2(114):1687–1762
24. Chaganti R, Varadarajan V, Gorantla VS, Gadekallu TR, Ravi V (2022) Blockchain-based cloud-ena-
bled security monitoring using internet of things in smart agriculture. Futur Internet 9(250):14
25. Al-Turjman F, Zahmatkesh H, Shahroze R (2019) An overview of security and privacy in smart cit-
ies’ IoT communications. Trans Emerg Telecommun Technol 3(e3677):33
26. Kariri E (2022) IoT powered agricultural cyber-physical system: Security issue assessment. IETE J
Res 1–11
27. Yang J, Liu M, Lu J, Miao Y, Hossain MA, Alhamid MF (2017) Botanical internet of things: toward
smart indoor farming by connecting people, plant, data and clouds. Mobile Netw Appl 23(2):188–202
28. Triantafyllou A, Sarigiannidis P, Bibi S (2019) A remote sensing monitoring system architecture.
Information 11(348):10
29. Raj A, Shetty SD (2021) IoT eco-system, layered architectures, security and advancing technologies:
a comprehensive survey. Wireless Pers Commun 2(122):1481–1517
30. Mahamat M, Jaber G, Bouabdallah A (2023) Achieving efficient energy-aware security in IoT net-
works: a survey of recent solutions and research challenges. Wirel Netw 29(2):787–808
31. Mori H, Kundaliya J, Naik K, Shah M (2022) IoT technologies in smart environment: security issues
and future enhancements. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:1–19
32. Tweneboah-Koduah S, Skouby KE, Tadayoni R (2017) Cyber security threats to IoT applications and
service domains. Wirel Pers Commun 95(1):169–185
33. Bujari A, Furini M, Mandreoli F, Martoglia R, Montangero M, Ronzani D (2017) Standards, security
and business models: key challenges for the IoT scenario. Mobile Netw Appl 23(1):147–154
34. Chanal PM, Kakkasageri MS (2020) Security and privacy in IOT: a survey. Wireless Pers Commun
2(115):1667–1693
35. Gundu T, Maronga V (2019) IoT security and privacy: turning on the human firewall in smart farm-
ing. ICICIS, pp 95–104
13
36. Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Suman R (2022) Enhancing smart farming through the applications
of Agriculture 4.0 technologies. Int J Intell Netw 3:150–164
37. Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, Suman R (2022) An integrated outlook of cyber-physical systems for
industry 4.0: topical practices, architecture, and applications. Green Technol Sustain 1:2949–7361
38. Kumar KA, Karthikeyan J (2021) Review on implementation of IoT for environmental condition
monitoring in the agriculture sector. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 1(13):183–200
39. Farooq MS, Riaz S, Abid A, Abid K, Naeem MA (2019) A survey on the role of IoT in agriculture for
the implementation of smart farming. IEEE Access 7:156237–156271
40. Dananjayan S, Zhuang J, Tang Y, He Y, Hou C, Luo S (2023) Wireless sensor deployment scheme for
cost-effective smart farming using the ABC-TEEM algorithm. Evol Syst 14(4):567–579
41. Thakur D, Kumar Y, Kumar A, Singh PK (2019) Applicability of wireless sensor networks in preci-
sion agriculture: a review. Wirel Pers Commun 1(107):471–512
42. Chaganti R, Varadarajan V, Gorantla VS, Gadekallu TR, Ravi V (2022) Blockchain-based cloud-ena-
bled security monitoring using internet of things in smart agriculture. Futur Internet 9(250):14
43. Boonchieng E, Chieochan O, Saokaew A (2018) Smart farm: applying the use of NodeMCU, IOT,
NETPIE and LINE API for a Lingzhi mushroom farm in Thailand. IEICE Trans Commun 101(1):16–23
44. Duang-Ek-Anong S, Pibulcharoensit S, Phongsatha T (2019) Technology readiness for Internet of
Things (IoT) adoption in smart farming in Thailand. Int J Simul Syst Sci Technol 20:1–6
45. Muangprathub J, Boonnam N, Kajornkasirat S, Lekbangpong N, Wanichsombat A, Nillaor P (2019)
IoT and agriculture data analysis for smart farm. Comput Electron Agric 156:467–474
46. Kwanmuang K, Pongputhinan T, Jabri A, Chitchumnung P (2020) Small-scale farmers under Thai-
land’s smart farming system. FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform (FFTC-AP) 636
47. Jansuwan P, Zander KK (2021) Getting young people to farm: how effective is Thailand’s young
smart farmer programme? Sustainability 13(21):11611
48. Pivoto D, Waquil PD, Talamini E, Finocchio CPS, Corte VFD, Mores GDV (2018) Scientific devel-
opment of smart farming technologies and their application in Brazil. Inf Process Agric 5(1):21–32
49. Pivoto D, Barham B, Waquil PD, Foguesatto CR, Corte VFD, Zhang D, Talamini E (2019) Factors
influencing the adoption of smart farming by Brazilian grain farmers. Int Food Agribusiness Manag
Rev 22(4):571–588
50. dos Santos UJ, Pessin G, da Costa CA, da Rosa Righi R (2018) AgriPrediction: a proactive internet of
things model to anticipate problems and improve production in agricultural crops. Comput Electron
Agric 161:202–213
51. Seo Y, Umeda S (2021) Evaluating farm management performance by the choice of pest-control
sprayers in rice farming in Japan. Sustainability 13(5):2618
52. Ahmad Safwan AB, Zareen Z (2019) Challenges of smart farming in oil palm plantation in Malaysia:
an overview. Malays Soc Agric Food Eng 2(1):280–282
53. Kassim MRM (2020, November) Iot applications in smart agriculture: issues and challenges. In: 2020
IEEE conference on open systems (ICOS). IEEE, pp 19–24
54. Chen W-L, Lin Y-B, Lin Y-W, Chen R, Liao J-K, Ng F-L, Chan Y-Y, Liu Y-C, Wang C-C, Chiu
C-H, Yen T-H (2019) AgriTalk: IoT for precision soil farming of turmeric cultivation. IEEE Internet
Things J 6(3):5209–5223
55. Hsiou RD-C (2022) The role of smart farm management system in promoting smart agriculture in
Taiwan. Food Fertil Technol Center (FFTC). https://doi.org/10.56669/NIKS5690
56. Hsu W-L, Wang W-K, Fan W-H, Shiau Y-C, Yang M-L, Lopez DJD (2021) Application of internet of
things in smart farm watering system. Sens Mater 3(1):269–283
57. Lin Y-B, Lin Y-W, Hung H-N (2019) SensorTalk: an IoT device failure detection and calibration
mechanism for smart farming. Sensors 19(21):4788
58. Hu X, Un L, Zhou Y, Ruan J (2020) Review of operational management in intelligent agriculture
based on the internet of things. Front Eng Manag 7(3):309–322
59. Wang T, Xu X, Wang C, Li Z, Li D (2021) From smart farming towards unmanned farms: a new
mode of agricultural production. Agriculture 11(2):145
60. Doyle L, Oliver L, Whitworth C (2018, October) Design of a climate smart farming system in East
Africa. In: 2018 IEEE Global humanitarian technology conference (GHTC). IEEE, pp 1–6
61. Afolabi DI, Daniyan L, Mpofu K, Boitumelu R (2019, January) Development and Performance Eval-
uation of Automated Irrigation System. In: 2019 Southern African Universities Power Engineering
Conference/Robotics and Mechatronics/Pattern Recognition Association of South Africa (SAUPEC/
RobMech/PRASA). IEEE, pp 12–16
62. Moghayedi A, Richter I, Owoade FM, Kapanji-Kakoma KK, Kaliyadasa E, Francis S, Ekpo C (2022)
Effects of urban smart farming on local economy and food production in urban areas in African Cit-
ies. Sustainability 14(7):10836
13
63. Punjabi HC, Agarwal S, Khithani V, Muddaliar V, Vasmatkar M (2017) Smart farming using IoT. Int
J Electron Commun Eng Technol 8(1):58–66
64. Koshy SS, Sunnam VS, Rajgarhia P, Chinnusamy K, Ravulapalli DP, Chunduri S (2018) Application
of the internet of things (IoT) for smart farming: a case study on groundnut and castor pest and dis-
ease forewarning. CSI Transactions on ICT 6(3):311–318
65. Pallavi S, Mallapur JD, Bendigeri KY (2017, December) Remote sensing and controlling of green-
house agriculture parameters based on IoT. In: 2017 International conference on big data, IoT and
data science (BID). IEEE, pp 44–48
66. Krishna KL, Silver O, Malende WF, Anuradha K (2017, February) Internet of Things application for
implementation of smart agriculture system. In: 2017 International conference on I-SMAC (IoT in
Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud)(I-SMAC). IEEE, pp 54–59
67. Nabi F, Jamwal S, Padmanbh K (2022) Wireless sensor network in precision farming for forecasting
and monitoring of apple disease: a survey. Int J Inf Technol 14(2):769–780
68. Cheema SM, Ali M, Pires IM, Gonçalves NJ, Naqvi MH, Hassan M (2022) IoAT Enabled smart
farming: urdu language-based solution for low-literate farmers. Agriculture 12(8):1277
69. Khan Z, Zahid Khan M, Ali S, Abbasi IA, Ur Rahman H, Zeb U, Khattak H, Huang J (2021) Inter-
net of things‐based smart farming monitoring system for bolting reduction in onion farms. Sci
Program 2021(1):7101983
70. Elijah O, Rahman TA, Orikumhi I, Leow CY, Hindia MN (2018) An overview of internet of
things (IoT) and data analytics in agriculture: benefits and challenges. IEEE Internet Things J
5(5):3758–3773
71. Anand P, Singh Y, Selwal A, Alazab M, Tanwar S, Kumar N (2020) IoT vulnerability assess-
ment for sustainable computing: threats, current solutions, and open challenges. IEEE Access
8:168825–168853
72. Kour VP, Arora S (2020) Recent developments of the internet of things in agriculture: a survey. IEEE
Access 8:129924–129957
73. Liu S, Guo L, Webb H, Ya X, Chang X (2019) Internet of things monitoring system of modern eco-
agriculture based on cloud computing. IEEE Access 7:37050–37058
74. Sontowski S, Gupta M, Chukkapalli SSL, Abdelsalam M, Mittal S, Joshi A, Sandhu R (2020, Decem-
ber) Cyber attacks on smart farming infrastructure. In: 2020 IEEE 6th International conference on
collaboration and internet computing (CIC). IEEE, pp 135–143
75. Mohammad Z, Qattam TA, Saleh K (2019, April) Security weaknesses and attacks on the Internet
of Things applications. In: 2019 IEEE Jordan international joint conference on electrical engineering
and information technology (JEEIT). IEEE, pp 431–436
76. Bhagat M, Kumar D, Kumar D (2019) Role of Internet of Things (IoT) in smart farming: A brief sur-
vey. In: 2019 Devices for integrated circuit (DevIC), pp 141–145
77. Barreto L, Amaral A (2018, September) Smart farming: cyber security challenges. In: 2018 Interna-
tional conference on intelligent systems (IS). IEEE, pp 870–876
78. Mohamed ES, Belal AA, Abd-Elmabod SK, El-Shirbeny MA, Gad A, Zahran MB (2021) Smart
farming for improving agricultural management. Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci 24(3):971–981
79. Balasubramaniyan M, Navaneethan C (2021) Applications of internet of things for smart farming – a
survey. Mater Today: Proc 47:18–24
80. Anand S, Sharma A (2020) WITHDRAWN: assessment of security threats on IoT based applications
81. Nizetic S, Solic P, Gonalez-de-Artaza DL-D-I (2020) Internet of Things (IoT): Opportunities, issues
and challenges towards a smart and sustainable future. J Clean Prod 122877:274
82. Sinha BB, Dhanalakshmi R (2022) Recent advancements and challenges of Internet of Things in
smart agriculture: a survey. Futur Gener Comput Syst 126:169–184
83. Idoje G, Dagiuklas T, Iqbal M (2021) Survey for smart farming technologies: Challenges and issues.
Comput Electr Eng 92:107104
84. Khattab A, Habib SE, Ismail H, Zayan S, Fahmy Y, Khairy MM (2019) An IoT-based cognitive mon-
itoring system for early plant disease forecast. Comput Electron Agric 166:105028
85. HaddadPajouh H, Parizi R (2021) A survey on internet of things security: requirements, challenges,
and solutions. Internet of Things 14:100129
86. Koksal O, Tekinerdogan B (2018) Architecture design approach for IoT-based farm management
information systems (5). Precision Agric 20(5):926–958
87. Bashir RN, Bajwa IS, Abbas MZ, Rehman A, Saba T, Bahaj SA, Kolivand H (2022) Internet of things
(IoT) assisted soil salinity mapping at irrigation schema level. Appl Water Sci 12(5):1–16
88. Gómez-Chabla R, Real-Avilés K, Morán C, Grijalva P, Recalde T (2018, December) IoT applications
in agriculture: a systematic literature review. In: 2nd International conference on ICTs in agronomy
and environment. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 68–76
13
89. Park J, Choi JH, Lee YJ, Min O (2017, December) A layered features analysis in smart farm environ-
ments. In: Proceedings of the international conference on big data and Internet of Thing, pp 169–173
90. Huning L, Bauer J, Aschenbruck N (2017, November) A privacy preserving mobile crowdsensing
architecture for a smart farming application. In: Proceedings of the first ACM workshop on mobile
crowdsensing systems and applications, pp 62–67
91. Rehman A, Saba T, Kashif M, Fati SM, Bahaj SA, Chaudhry H (2022) A revisit of internet of things
technologies for monitoring and control strategies in smart agriculture. Agronomy 12(127):1
92. Jr ERH, Daughtry CST (2018) What good are unmanned aircraft systems for agricultural remote
sensing and precision agriculture? Int J Remote Sens 39(15-16):5345-5376
93. West J (2018) A prediction model framework for cyber-attacks to precision agriculture technologies. J
Agric Food Inf 19(4):307–330
94. Baseca CC, Sendra S, Lloret J, Tomas J (2019) A smart decision system for digital farming. Agron-
omy 9(216):5
95. Araújo SO, Peres RS, Barata J, Lidon F, Ramalho JC (2021) Characterising the agriculture 4.0 land-
scape—emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Agronomy 11(4):667
96. Saiz-Rubio V, Rovira-Más F (2020) From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: a review on crop
data management. Agronomy 207(2):10
97. Akhigbe BI, Munir K, Akinade O, Akanbi L, Oyedele LO (2021) IoT technologies for livestock man-
agement: a review of present status, opportunities, and future trends. Big Data Cogn Comput 5(1):10
98. Demestichas K, Peppes N, Alexakis T (2020) Survey on security threats in agricultural IoT and smart
farming. Sensors 20(22):6458
99. Khan N, Ray RL, Sargani GR, Ihtisham M, Khayyam M, Ismail S (2021) Current progress and future
prospects of agriculture technology: gateway to sustainable agriculture. Gateway to sustainable agri-
culture. Sustainability 4883(9):13
100. Almalki FA, Soufiene BO, Alsamhi SH, Sakli H (2021) A Low-Cost Platform for Environmental
Smart Farming Monitoring System Based on IoT and UAVs. Sustainability 5908(11):13
101. Pathmudi VR, Khatri N, Kumar S, Abdul-Qawy ASH, Vyas AK (2023) A systematic review of
IoT technologies and their constituents for smart and sustainable agriculture applications. Sci
Afr 19:e01577
102. Yaacoub JPA, Noura HN, Salman O, Chehab A (2023) Ethical hacking for IoT: Security issues, chal-
lenges, solutions and recommendations. Internet Things Cyber-Phys Syst 3:280–308
103. Laghari AA, Wu K, Laghari RA, Ali M, Khan AA (2021) A review and state of art of Internet of
Things (IoT). Arch Comput Methods Eng 1–19
104. Chamara N, Islam MD, Bai GF, Shi Y, Ge Y (2022) Ag-IoT for crop and environment monitoring:
past, present, and future. Agric Syst 203:103497
105. Kumar R, Kumar P, Gupta GP, Tripathi R, Gadekallu TR, Srivastava G (2021) SP2F: A secured
privacy-preserving framework for smart agricultural unmanned aerial vehicles. Comput Netw
187:107819
106. Farooq MS, Riaz S, Abid A, Abid K, Naeem MA (2019) A survey on the Role of IoT in agriculture
for the implementation of smart farming. Ieee Access 7:156237–156271
107. Mishra D, Pande T, Agrawal KK, Abbas A, Pandey AK, Yadav RS (2019, June) Smart agriculture
system using IoT. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on advanced informatics for
computing research, pp 1–7
108. AlZu’bi S, Hawashin B, Mujahed M, Jararweh Y, Gupta BB (2019) An efficient employment of inter-
net of multimedia things in smart and future agriculture. Multimed Tools Appl 78(20):29581–29605
109. Maroua B, Rachida AA, Abdelaziz M (2022) Smart farming architectures based on IoT review: com-
parative study. Procedia Computer Science 203:783–788
110. Alyahya S, Khan WU, Ahmed S, Marwat SNK, Habib S (2022) Cyber secure framework for smart
agriculture: robust and tamper-resistant authentication scheme for IoT devices. Electronics 11(963):6
111. Shapsough S, Takrouri M, Dhaouadi R, Zualkernan MA (2018) Using IoT and smart monitoring
devices to optimize the efficiency of large-scale distributed solar farms. Wirel Netw 27(6):4313–4329
112. Awoyemi BS, Alfa AS, Maharaj BTJ (2020) Resource optimisation in 5G and internet-of-things net-
working. Wirel Pers Commun 4(111):2671–2702
113. Pajouh HH, Parizi R (2019) A survey on internet of things security: requirements, challenges, and
solutions. Internet Things 14:100129
114. Sobin CC (2020) A survey on architecture, protocols and challenges in IoT. Wireless Pers Commun
3(112):1383–1429
115. Xu J, Gu B, Tian G (2022) Review of agricultural IoT technology. Artif Intell Agric 6:10–22
116. Zhang Y, Chen M (2023) An IoT-enabled energy-efficient approach for the detection of leaf curl dis-
ease in tomato crops. Wirel Netw 29(1):321–329
13
117. Ray PP (2017) Internet of things for smart agriculture: technologies, practices and future direction. J
Ambient Intell Smart Environ 9(4):395–420
118. Abbasi R, Martinez P, Ahmad R (2022) The digitization of agricultural industry–a systematic litera-
ture review on agriculture 4.0. Smart Agric Technol 2:100042
119. Shaaban AM, Chlup S, El-Araby N, Schmittner C (2022) Towards Optimized Security Attributes for
IoT Devices in Smart Agriculture Based on the IEC 62443 Security Standard. Appl Sci 12(5653):11
120. Mousavi SK, Ghafari A, Besharat S, Afshari H (2020) Security of Internet of Things using RC4 and
ECC algorithms (case study: smart irrigation systems). Wirel Pers Commun 3(116):1713–1742
121. Attkan A, Ranga V (2022) Cyber-physical security for IoT networks: a comprehensive review on tra-
ditional, blockchain and artificial intelligence based key-security. Complex Intell Syst 8(4):3559–3591
122. Majumdar P, Mitra S, Bhattacharya D (2021) IoT for promoting agriculture 4.0: a review from the
perspective of weather monitoring, yield prediction, security of WSN protocols, and hardware cost
analysis. J Biosyst Eng 46(4):440–461
123. Dofe J, Sain KR (2022) Internet of things world: a new security perspective. SN Comput Sci
4(1):1–13
124. Mousavi SK, Ghafari A, Besharat S, Afshari H (2020) Improving the security of internet of things
using cryptographic algorithms: a case of smart irrigation systems. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Com-
put 2(12):2033–2051
125. Morais CMD, Sadok D, Kelner J (2019) An IoT sensor and scenario survey for data researchers. J
Braz Comput Soc 1(25):1–17
126. Guha Roy D, Mahato B, De D, Srirama SN (2023) Quality of experience aware recommendation sys-
tem with IoT data filtration for handshaking among users using MQTT-SN protocol. J Ambient Intell
Humaniz Comput 14(7):8811–8826
127. Rajapaksha TT, Alexander A, Fernando L, Than A, Nguyen HL (2022) Real-time weather monitoring
and iot-based palmtop device for smart agriculture. SN Comput Sci 3(1):1–6
128. Nabi F, Jamwal S, Padmanbh K (2022) Wireless sensor network in precision farming for forecasting
and monitoring of apple disease: a survey. Int J Inf Technol 14(2):769–780
129. Keswani B, Mohapatra AG, Mohanty A, Khanna A, Rodrigues JJPC, Gupta D, Albuquerque VHCD
(2019) Adapting weather conditions based IoT enabled smart irrigation technique in precision agri-
culture mechanisms. Neural Comput Appl 1(31):277–292
130. Kassim MRM (2020, November) Iot applications in smart agriculture: issues and challenges. In: 2020
IEEE conference on open systems (ICOS). IEEE, pp 19–24
131. Ray RL, Fares A, He Y, Temimi M (2017) Evaluation and inter-comparison of satellite soil moisture
products using in situ observations over Texas, US. Water 9(6):372
132. Bhardwaj A, Kumar M, Alshehri M, Keshta I, Abugabah A, Sharma SK (2024) Smart water manage-
ment framework for irrigation in agriculture. Environ Technol 45(12):2320–2334
133. Akhter R, Sof SA (2022) Precision agriculture using IoT data analytics and machine learning. J King
Saud Univ-Comput Inf Sci 34(8):5602–5618
134. Srivastava A, Das DK (2020) A comprehensive review on the application of Internet of Thing (IoT) in
smart agriculture. Wireless Pers Commun 2(122):1807–1837
135. Vangala A, Das AK, Chamola V, Korotaev V, Rodrigues JJ (2023) Security in IoT-enabled smart agri-
culture: architecture, security solutions and challenges. Clust Comput 26(2):879–902
136. Bhutta MNM, Ahmad M (2021) Secure identification, traceability and real-time tracking of agricul-
tural food supply during transportation using internet of things. IEEE Access 9:65660–65675
137. Santhosh J, Balamurugan P, Arulkumaran G, Baskar M, Velumani R (2021) Image driven multi fea-
ture plant management with FDE based smart agriculture with improved security in wireless sensor
networks. Wirel Pers Commun 2(127):1647–1663
138. Baranwal G, Singh M, Vidyarthi DP (2020) A framework for IoT service selection. J Supercomput
76(4):2777–2814
139. Puig F, Díaz JAR, Soriano MA (2022) Development of a low-cost open-source platform for smart
irrigation systems. Agronomy 12(2909):12
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
13

Security and Privacy in Iot Based Smart Farming: A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Security and Privacy in Iot Based Smart Farming: A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Security and Privacy in Iot Based Smart Farming: A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multimedia Tools and Applications

Security and privacy in IoT‑based Smart Farming: a review

Iram Asghar Ali1 · Wajahat Anwaar Bukhari2 · Muhammad Adnan3 ·

Received: 6 September 2023 / Revised: 13 March 2024 / Accepted: 7 June 2024

Keywords Internet of Things · Smart Farming · Privacy/Security · Sensor/Devices ·

* Wajahat Anwaar Bukhari

utilization of current developments in guidelines, policies, cost-effective tools, and via-

Fig. 1 Agriculture Cycle

Fig. 2 IoT-based Smart Farm

Different kinds of sensors are used by SF to gather information for communication.

Fig. 3 Outline of the paper

Fig. 4 General IoT Data Work-

1.1.4 Role of IoT in advanced farming practices

1.1.5 Global positioning system (GPS)

Photo electricity, ultrasonography, electrodynamics, and conductance are used to evalu-

Fig. 5 System of Internet of Things System

1.1.7 Geographic information system (GIS)

1.2 Multi‑layered architecture of smart farming

Fig. 6 Multi-layered Architecture of Smart Farming

1.2.4 Network communication layer

1.3 Security and privacy

Confidentiality Keeping personal information safe from unauthorized parties while in

Fig. 7 CIA in IoT

Fig. 8 Timeline of Agriculture History

2.1 IoT‑based Smart Farming in different countries

In terms of real implementations, technologies and policies based on proof consistently

Fig. 9 IoT-Based Smart Farming in Different Countries

information searches works

Fig. 10 Research Methodology

RQ1: Which IoT-based technologies are used in smart Farming?

3.5 Inclusion & exclusion criteria

1 Searching Keywords 114 206 192 66 21 135 734

Fig. 12 Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

3.6 Year‑wised distribution of selected studies

3.8 SCImago journal rank

Fig. 13 Year-wise Publications

Table 4 Quality criteria SJR Sources Ranking Score

3.9 Quality assessment of selected studies

3.10 Result of selected studies

4.1 RQ1: Which IoT‑based technologies are used in smart farming?

Table 5 Quality assessment of References Year Medium Quality Assessment

[1] 2020 Journal 0 1 1 1.5 3.5

Controlling lights some perspectives

light sensor Tracking

4.1.1 Network and communication protocol

A communication protocol describes the communication methods between various dig-

IoT SF encompasses a variety of monitoring, controlling, and tracking applications that

Fig. 14 Network and Communication Protocol

4.2 RQ2: What problems are faced by a farmer in IoT‑based smart Farming?

Fig. 15 Domains of IoT

Fig. 16 System Architecture & Attack Surface

4.2.1 Insider data leakage attacks

Fig. 17 Cyber Attacks on Smart Farming

4.2.2 False data injection attacks

4.2.5 Cloud data leakage attacks

4.2.6 Radio frequency jamming attacks

Radiofrequency communication, such as cellular or satellite networks, is frequently used

4.2.7 Malware injection attacks

4.2.8 Denial of service (DoS)Attacks

1.1.4 Role of IoT in advanced farming practices

1.1.5 Global positioning system (GPS)

1.1.7 Geographic information system (GIS)

1.2 Multi‑layered architecture of smart farming

1.2.4 Network communication layer

1.3 Security and privacy

2.1 IoT‑based Smart Farming in different countries

3.5 Inclusion & exclusion criteria

3.6 Year‑wised distribution of selected studies

3.8 SCImago journal rank

3.9 Quality assessment of selected studies

3.10 Result of selected studies

4.1 RQ1: Which IoT‑based technologies are used in smart farming?

4.1.1 Network and communication protocol

4.2 RQ2: What problems are faced by a farmer in IoT‑based smart Farming?

4.2.1 Insider data leakage attacks

4.2.2 False data injection attacks

4.2.5 Cloud data leakage attacks

4.2.6 Radio frequency jamming attacks

4.2.7 Malware injection attacks

4.2.8 Denial of service (DoS)Attacks

4.2.9 Side channel attacks

4.2.12 Cloud computing attack

4.2.15 Location tracking attack

4.3 RQ3 What solutions are available in IoT‑based Smart Farming?

4.3.5 Environmental condition monitoring

4.3.6 Crop and plant growth monitoring

4.3.9 Aerial crop monitoring

4.3.10 Drilling, seeding, and spraying

4.3.11 Fertilization and pest control

4.3.12 Greenhouse illumination control

4.3.15 Supply chain traceability

5.1 IoT‑based Smart Farming hierarchy

5.2 Open issues and challenges in Smart Farming

5.2.1 Hardware maintenance and limited energy resources

5.2.2 Lack of financial resources and technology costs

5.2.3 Lack of transparency in data license terms

5.2.4 Literacy status of farmers

5.2.7 Security and privacy