REPORT SAMPLE

Market Report | September 2017

IOT SECURITY MARKET REPORT 2017-2022SAMPLE Edition

Internet of Things Security is a crucial topic to master for any organization deploying IoT-based solutions. Find out which companies are leading the fast growing IoT Security market, which technologies should be considered when securing assets or devices, and which trends are shaping this quickly evolving field of technology.

REPORT SAMPLE

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved.

II

IOT SECURITY MARKET REPORT 2017-2022

IOT SECURITY MARKET REPORT 2017-2022

Authors: Padraig Scully, Lasse van Aken

License type: Single User

September 2017

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved.

III

Table of Contents

PREFACE: Current state of IoT security attacks 1

Executive Summary 3

1 IoT Security Overview 7

1.1 IoT Introduction 8

1.1.1 The 4 Major Layers of an IoT Solution 9

1.2 History of Cyber Security Viruses and Important Cyber Physical Breaches 13

1.2.1 Evolution of cyber security viruses (IT) 14

1.2.2 History of cyber physical attacks (OT) 16

1.2.3 History of IoT security attacks (IoT) 19

1.3 The History Evolution of Cyber Security Solutions 22

1.4 Today’s IoT Security Threats 25

1.4.1. General IoT attack surface 28

1.4.2. Common IoT threats 31

1.4.3. Types of IoT attackers 34

1.4.4. IoT attackers’ motivation 36

2 IoT Security Technology 38

2.1 Secure Device (Hardware) 43

2.1.1 Physical Security 44

2.1.2 Data at Rest (Device) 46

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved.

IV

2.1.3 Chip Security 48

2.1.4 Secure Booting 50

2.1.5 Device Authentication 52

2.1.6 Device Identity Management 54

2.1.7 Further Principles for Device Security 56

2.2 Secure Communications (Network) 57

2.2.1 Access Management 58

2.2.2 Firewall / IPS / IDS 60

2.2.3 End-2-End Encryption 61

2.2.4 Further Principles for Secure Communication 63

2.3 Secure Cloud (Backend) 64

2.3.1 Data at Rest (Cloud) / DLP 65

2.3.2 Platform and Application Integrity Verification 67

2.3.3 Unified threat management 69

2.3.4 Further Principles for Secure Cloud 71

2.4 Secure Lifecycle Management 72

2.4.1 Risk Assessment 73

2.4.2 Policies & Auditing 75

2.4.3 Activity Monitoring 77

2.4.4 Updates & Patches 80

2.4.5 Vendor Control 82

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved.

V

2.4.6 User awareness assessment & training 84

2.4.7 Secure decommissioning 86

2.4.8 Further Principles for Secure Lifecycle Management 87

2.5 Constrained devices and the security implications 88

3 Market Analysis 91

3.1 Overall Market 92

3.2 Market Deep-Dives 93

3.2.1 By Solution Type 93

3.2.2 By Segment 94

3.2.3 By Solution Provider 114

3.2.4 By Technology 115

3.2.5 By Region 117

4 Competitive Landscape 118

4.1 Overview 120

4.2 Large Vendors 123

4.2.1 Company XX 124

4.2.2 Company XX 127

4.2.3 Company XX 130

4.2.4 Company XX 133

4.2.5 Company XX 137

4.2.6 Company XX 141

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved.

VI

4.2.7 Company XX 144

4.2.8 Company XX 148

4.2.9 Company XX 151

4.2.10 Company XX 153

4.3 Innovative Smaller firms 155

4.3.1 Company XX 155

4.3.2 Company XX 158

4.3.3. Company XX 160

4.3.4 Company XX 163

4.3.5 Company XX 165

4.4 Mergers and Acquisitions 167

4.5 Partnerships and Collaborations 168

4.6 Selected Other Market Participants 169

5 Implementation Considerations 188

5.1 Assess IoT security gaps in the organization 189

5.2 Determine main responsibility for IoT security 191

5.3 Evaluate relevant standards, initiatives & guidelines 193

5.3.1 Global Security Initiatives 193

5.3.2 Industrial Focused Security Initiatives 199

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved.

VII

5.3.3 Governmental Security Initiatives 201

5.4 Review the IoT environment security requirements 205

5.4.1 Secure technology stack 205

5.4.2 Security priorities 206

5.4.3 Secure data growth 207

5.4.4 Secure patching 208

5.5 Learn from existing IoT implementations 209

5.5.1 Security by design best practices and checklist 209

5.5.2 8 Implementation projects 210

6 Market Trends 236

6.1 Trend 1: XX 238

6.2 Trend 2: XX 242

6.3 Trend 3: XX 248

6.4 Trend 4: XX 250

6.5 Trend 5: XX 254

6.6 Trend 6: XX 257

Appendix 259

A. Market definition, sizing and methodology 259

B. IoT Solution Stack Term Explanations 260

C. Checklist – Collection of IoT security expert advice 262

D. List of security breaches in the report 264

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved.

VIII

E. Exploiting smart city terminals 270

F. Acronyms 273

G. List of exhibits 279

H. List of tables 283

About 284

Selected recent publications 284

Upcoming publications 284

Subscription 284

Newsletter 284

Authors 285

Contact Us 285

Copyright 286

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 1

PREFACE: Current state of IoT security attacks

The unprecedented scale of DDoS attacks in October 2016 on DYN’s servers gave us just a glimpse of what

is possible when attackers leverage up to 150,000 unsecure IoT devices as malicious endpoints. The resulting

disruption to many popular online services (such as Twitter, Paypal, Netflix, and Spotify) generated a great deal

of attention for IoT Security in Q4 2016. Furthermore, in Q2 2017 the WannaCry ransomware attack affected

more than 230,000 computers in over 150 countries, with the UK’s NHS, Spanish phone company Telefónica

and German state railway Deutsche Bahn among those hardest hit. Weeks later the Petya ransomware followed

causing serious disruption at large firms around the world, including Danish shipping and transport firm Maersk,

Russian steel and oil firms Evraz and Rosneft, and Heritage Valley Health System which runs hospitals and care

facilities in Pittsburgh, USA. However, interest has been steadily gathering momentum over the last 3 years. (See

graph in Exhibit 1 for Google Trends search term data on “IoT security”)

ExhibiT 1: “IoT Security” search interest over time from Google Trends

The massive 1.2 Terabits per second DYN attack was just one of the events that peaked IoT security curiosity in

2016. A number of other high-profile attacks also created global awareness such as:

• In September 2016, a huge DDoS attack (620 Gbps) brought down the cyber security website of journalist

Brain Krebs.

• In November 2016, a new version of the Mirai botnet crippled internet access for nearly a million home

users in Germany exploiting a firmware update weakness found in widely used routers.

However, IoT security has to deal with much more than DDoS attacks on consumer devices:

• For example, just eight days before U.S. President Trump was sworn in, hackers used ransomware to

commandeer 187 traffic and security cameras around Washington, D.C. The devices had to be taken offline

for 48 hours to be securely reconfigured and setup in-time to monitor the inaugural parade route.

REPORT SAMPLE

2

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 2

Such events are currently shaping the conversation around IoT security and are fueling challenging discussions

tackling the leading concerns in both cyber and physical security. National agendas are being developed to address

the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) surrounding IoT security. For example, in December 2016 the U.S. Department

of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report with strategic principles and suggested practices for securing the

Internet of Things. In Europe, the European Commission recently announced the concept of mandatory sticky

labels (similar to those used for energy efficiency ratings) on IoT products. The aim is to guarantee adherence and

boost basic security standards that would encourage manufacturers to build more secure devices. Even world

leaders are addressing the growing concerns of connecting billions of devices to the internet. The World Economic

Forum recently commissioned a report to create a set of guidelines, designed for board-level use, that address

the challenges and risks of cyber security in emerging markets based on hyper-connected technologies. Thus, IoT

security was high on the agenda for discussion at WEF 2017 in Davos, Switzerland in January.

It comes as no surprise that IoT Security is the top concern across industries highlighted by numerous IoT surveys.

For example, 47% of respondents in the 2016 IoT Developer Survey (sponsored by IEEE IoT, Eclipse IoT and Agile

IoT) put IoT security as the top concern when developing IoT solutions. Furthermore, the 2016 Vodafone IoT

Barometer survey reveals security is rising up the agenda for many businesses: with more than half of respondents

say they’re more concerned about IoT security risks than they were in the past, and 30% say they are changing or

restricting the scope of IoT projects to limit security risks.

This report provides an overview of the ongoing shift in IoT security technologies, the state of current IoT security

implementation projects in various industries, a landscape of companies enabling this shift and discusses the

trends accompanying IoT and cyber security specifically.

PREFACE

9

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 9

1 IOT SECURITY OVERVIEW

1.1.1 The 4 Major Layers of an IoT Solution

Developing secure end-to-end IoT solutions involves multiple layers.

VisualizationBusiness System

Integration

Development Environment

Storage / Database Device Mgnt.

Connectivity Network

Event Processing & Basic Analytics

Advanced Analytics

4 Applications

3 Cloud

2 Communication

1 Device

MPU

Operating System

Hardware

e.g., smart

vending machine

Smart DeviceMPU

Operating System

Hardware

e.g.,

edge gateway

Edge Gateway

MCU

Firmware & Hardware

e.g., motion sensor

Simple Device

ExhibiT 2: Four major layers of an IoT solution

On a high level, there are 4 major layers of an IoT solution 1. Device, 2. Communication, 3. Cloud, 4. Applications.

Each layer demands a specific array of competences and proficiency to function within its own realm, not to

mention the varied skillset required in bringing the end-to-end solution seamlessly together across the 4 layers.

Each layer is made up of a number of key components:

REPORT SAMPLE

10

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 10

1 IOT SECURITY OVERVIEW

A. DEVICE LAYER

On the device layer there are 2 types of devices, simple and smart:

• Simple Device: The main purpose is to generate data, perform instant actions and transmit data. Typically,

simple devices have constrained resources, low hardware costs, basic connectivity, basic security/identity,

and no/light manageability. For example, a smart lightbulb in the home or an industrial motion sensor

with basic firmware and a microcontroller (MCU). Simple devices are often also referred to as constrained

devices.

• Smart Device: Smart devices can typically perform all the tasks of a simple device but also include more

capabilities to enable edge analytics, time-sensitive decisions and provide local compute capability.

Smart devices typically maximize security, manageability, interoperability, solutions reliability and reduces

bandwidth costs for communication at the edge. In many cases, cloud enabled smart devices are equipped

with a natural user interface. For example, a smart home control system or a smart vending machine with

an operating system and microprocessor (MPU). Note: An edge gateway may also be classed as a smart

device which can act as a link between edge devices and the cloud adding an extra layer of security and

control. See more info in Chapter 1.5.

Main device layer components include:

• Operating System: Low-level system software managing hardware and software resources and providing

common services for running system applications e.g., WindRiver VxWorks.

• Modules and Drivers: Adaptable modules, drivers, and source libraries that reduce development and

testing time e.g., AWS IoT Device SDKs.

• MPU / MCU: Multi-purpose programmable electronic devices at microprocessor or microcontroller level

e.g., Intel Atom processors and Texas Instruments MSP430 controller.

• Additional Chips: Trusted platform modules and dedicated security chips e.g., Infineon OPTIGA TPM.

• basic hardware: Printed circuit boards with motors, actuators, sensors, battery or power source including

circuit-shielding, protective casing / device housing.

13

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 13

1 IOT SECURITY OVERVIEW

1.2 History of Cyber Security Viruses and Important Cyber Physical

Breaches

As technology advances led to computer systems becoming increasingly sophisticated, computer viruses (which

focused mainly on PCs, servers and IT systems) also evolved tremendously. It is important to understand the

evolution of these cyber security viruses as (in many cases) these viruses have been adapted for cyber-physical

attacks in OT and now IoT environments (where connected real-world physical devices are compromised for

malicious purposes). However, everyday hackers won’t be able to just take down a power grid or blow up chemical

facilities with traditional viruses. The danger arises when attackers also have an understanding of the physical

and engineering aspects of the plant, site or IoT device they are targeting. Basic software vulnerabilities are of

little use if attackers want the maximum scenario to cause real damage. Instead, advanced skillsets far beyond

hacking are required e.g., knowledge of engineering protocols, equipment operation, and system processes.

Over the last five decades or so there has been an ever-increasing convergence of IT and OT environments. From

introducing direct digital control in the 70s to integrated architecture in the 2000s, the ability to seamlessly

interact and control operational equipment with applications on smartphones is now possible. The following chart

visualizes this convergence and the subsequent 5-layer pyramid that is shaping manufacturing environments

today.

ExhibiT 3: Converge of IT and OT

In terms of security, traditionally viruses have been mainly related to IT while cyber-physical attacks have been

related to OT, both of which are now targeting IoT environments. This section highlights the virus evolution,

examples of cyber-physical attacks and findings from an IoT security survey.

REPORT SAMPLE

19

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 19

1 IOT SECURITY OVERVIEW

1.2.3 History of IoT security attacks (IoT)

For this report, the definition of an IoT security attack encompasses any incident that results in unauthorized/

unintentional exposure or disclosure (including damage or loss) to data, applications, services, networks and IoT

devices by bypassing their underlying security mechanisms. Where IoT devices represent any network-enabled

physical object (i.e., from a tiny sensor to a nuclear reactor). Furthermore, an IoT security attack occurs when an

unauthorized individual physically tampers with an IoT device or an application illegitimately enters a private,

confidential or unauthorized logical perimeter of an IoT solution.

It is not possible to know every single attack or breach that has occurred within the IoT security space to-date

(as either they haven’t been found or highlighted, as enterprises want to keep them a secret). However, the Aidra

botnet may have been the first large-scale IoT security attack as for the first time a typical IT attack (e.g., virus was

sent over-the-air to thousands of devices) thereby combining the two worlds at scale for the first time:

• In 2012, the Aidra botnet infected as many as 30,000 embedded devices (including the Linux-powered

Dreambox TV receiver) and other devices that run on a MIPS hardware. Aidra exploited a D-Link router

vulnerability and modified firewall settings using IP tables that forced compromised devices to carry out a

variety of denial-of-service attacks.

More recent IoT security examples include:

• In October 2016 access to many popular online services (such as Twitter, Paypal, Netflix, and Spotify) was

disrupted by a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on the service provider (DYN) servers. Hackers

leveraged up to 150,000 unsecure IoT devices (e.g., internet-ready cameras) as malicious endpoints using

the Mirai botnet to bring down the servers with a reported 1.2 Terabits of data per second. The Mirai botnet

(of which the source code was released publicly on the Internet) took advantage of default usernames and

passwords such as admin/123456, root/admin, or admin/1111 (see more here).

• In October 2016, about 900,000 customers of Deutsche Telekom in Germany experienced outages to

telephony, television, and internet services when modems were attacked via the common TCP maintenance

interface port 7547. Variants of the Bashlight virus exploited modems and routers that use a technology

called Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) which automatically opens specific virtual portholes or “ports”. This

essentially creates a hole in the router’s shield to allow an IoT device to be communicated with from the

wider Internet.

• Also in October 2016, the Linux/IRCTelnet botnet emerged combining capabilities of Mirai (e.g., exploiting

default and hardcoded credentials), Bashlight (e.g., telnet-scanning capabilities), and Aidra (e.g, built on

it’s source code). This Internet Relay Chat (IRC) botnet was created using the ELF (Executable and Linkable

Format) binaries. This is a common file format for Linux and UNIX-based systems used in the firmware of

many IoT devices including routers, DVRs, and IP cameras. It infected nearly 3,500 devices in just five days

before it was discovered in by MalwareMustDie!, a white-hat security research group.

25

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 25

1 IOT SECURITY OVERVIEW

1.4 Today’s IoT Security Threats

Many IT problems (e.g., viruses) have been successfully contained due to the evolution of IT security solutions,

building in more resilience to help defend against attack. Focus is now shifting to IoT security however, initial

solutions are still evolving. In some cases, it remains difficult to know what the threats really are and as a result

many weaknesses still exist. One of the big differences between the Internet of Things and previous internet

technology is that the amount of possible threats is much larger, due to the following (based on the below

equation for the level of cybersecurity risk from Bosch):

Threat Level x Probability of Attack x Points of Exposure

Cybersecurity Measures ImplementedCybersecurity Risk =

a) More connected devices mean more points of exposure.

b) Every compromised device becomes a new possible attack point, which by definition means a higher

probability of attacks.

c) With much more connected devices in many applications (i.e., hundreds of different use cases which all

build on different standards, interact with different systems and have different goals, for example, see the

2016 Enterprise IoT Project List for 640+ different use cases), especially critical infrastructure applications

where there is an increased impact of attacks (i.e., damage to the physical world and possible loss-of-life),

the stakes are much higher for hackers which increases the threat level.

d) In addition, a more complex technology stack means new threats are possible from across the stack (i.e.,

from the different hardware, communication, and software elements - see Chapter 1.1.1) which must be

counteracted by the implemented cybersecurity measures (and by experienced security professionals).

As such, with an increased number of connected devices, the equation can only be balanced by significantly

increasing the necessary security measures implemented. For example, taking a conventional home versus a

smart home:

• Conventional home: typically, the only device with internet connectivity in a conventional home is a

PC or laptop. This represents one exposure point to protect which makes the job relatively easy. Security

measures can include a home firewall, anti-virus or anti-spamware.

• Smart home: in smart home environments, practically everything could be connected such as locks,

appliances, lights, TV, computers, etc. Once one of the devices is compromised (i.e., the least secure) the

entire smart house is potentially exposed. These new challenges require more creative security measures to

protect the smart home environment (see more in Chapter 2).

41

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 41

2 IOT SECURITY TECHNOLOGY

ioT Security is about the weakest link. Multi-layered security approaches (i.e., bringing the best of current cyber

security solutions) are required to work together and provide complete end-to-end security from device to cloud

and everything in between. This approach aims to reduce the overall attack surface area and keep the weakest

link to a minimum. It is important to realize that one weak link can open up the whole system (e.g., hackers have

gained access to entire company networks by simply entering the default device password for an IoT connected

surveillance camera). Combining hardware and software solutions (i.e., cyber physical solutions) that go from

device to cloud and cover everything in between (on an on-going basis) will enable more seamless security

throughout the lifecycles of IoT solutions.

ExhibiT 14: Iot Security happens on four different levels. Device, Communications, Cloud and Lifecycle Management

REPORT SAMPLE

92

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 92

3 MARKET ANALYSIS

3.1 Overall Market

ExhibiT 16: IoT Security Market – Total Market ($M)

The growth of the IoT security market through 2022 is presented in Exhibit 16. The worldwide CAGR for the market

through the five-year period is expected to be 44%, representing steady growth from $703M in 2017 to become

almost a $4.4B opportunity by 2022. Based on a typical “spend per IoT project“, IoT Analytics estimates that the

IoT security market makes up between 1-2% of the overall IoT market (See Exhibit 48 for further details). The IoT

security market is currently growing at rates >44% as it is starting from a low base and currently expanding. The

overall year-on-year growth rate is expected to increase steadily from 2020 as the market becomes more mature.

Security is currently outgrowing other IoT markets based on a number of driving forces such as:

• more and more IoT projects are moving from pilot to roll-out with an additional need for security.

• increased regulation is expected to set higher security standards.

• connecting legacy equipment to the IoT requires more retrofit security solutions.

• new threats are emerging that were not thought about before and need to be secured.

REPORT SAMPLE

259

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 259

APPENDIX

Appendix

A. Market definition, sizing and methodology

Market definition: The growth of the Internet of Things is driving an increasing focus on IoT security to protect

against advanced persistent threats (APT), distributed denial of services (DDoS), malware, bots, spam, viruses,

worms, spyware, trojans, network attacks, phishing, hactivism and the potential for cyberwar. The IoT security

market is made up of a wide range of security solutions that enable the secure deployment, management and

control of IoT solutions and provide end-to-end data security (from device to cloud and everything in between)

throughout the lifecycle of the solution. For this report, IoT security is defined as any element that protects IoT

solutions against virtual or physical damage on one or several of the following layers: device, communication,

cloud and lifecycle management. IoT is hereby defined as any device other than a computer, cellphone or tablet

that has some form of connectivity which allows it to exchange information to a backend system. Legacy industrial

systems such as PLCs and SCADA that have a local connectivity are not considered IoT unless they use a private

or public cloud infrastructure, neither are non-IP based protocols such as NFC or RFID. This report only looks at

independent vendors of these solutions and does not include in-house developments of IoT security.

Market sizing: The market for 2017 was sized using a bottom-up approach, summing up the IoT security-related

revenues of known companies in the field.In cases where the revenue for IoT security related offerings was not

known, it was estimated on the relevance of IoT security for the company in relation to its latest overall report

revenue numbers or (if not reported) based on an employee-based revenue estimate. Technology and industry splits

were based on insights gained in expert interviews and through the use of web indicators such as employment

status. The forecast to 2022 is a triangulation of a.) IoT-based market growth forecasts, b.) past growth in IoT

security, c.) Current growth figures (2016 to 2017) in this field that some of the technology vendors are reporting

(sometimes only “ballpark figures” d.) Expert opinion. To calculate the market size and individual company revenue,

the report considers the revenues generated from the sales of IoT security solutions including hardware, software,

and services. Services are made up of professional services, consulting, implementation related services and

managed services provided by the vendors. One should note, this report only looks at independent IoT security

offerings available on the market and does not consider hobby developers/programmers that create their own

security solutions according to “security by design”. It is expected that many of these companies offering security

solutions will be amending their product portfolio in the future to offer more complete IoT security solutions.

Methodology: This report is based on extensive desktop web and literary research, 25+ expert interviews with

key stakeholders in the IoT security market (technology vendors and technology users), as well as attending

10 conferences over the last 12 months and reviewing conference materials from various IoT/Security focused

events and further web data analysis. Expert interviews were equally distributed across SMEs and MNCs, and

a number of startups that operate across the stack in the various fields of IoT security. A number of companies

offering IoT security solutions (both products and services) were also interviewed.

284

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 284

About

IoT Analytics is the leading provider of market and industry insights for the Internet of Things (IoT). The company

reaches more than 40,000 people in the IoT ecosystem every month, offering the following products and services:

LATEST iNSiGhTS: Latest IoT news, regular blog posts, monthly newsletter, specific white papers

MARKET REPORTS: Targeted industry reports, company databases/lists, specific IoT data sets

GO-TO-MARKET SERViCES: Sponsored publications, joint webinars, custom research for specific

inquiries and IoT consulting.

Find out more at http://www.iot-analytics.com

Selected recent publications

Predictive Maintenance Market Report 2017-2022

List of 450 IoT Platform Companies

Upcoming publications

Industrial IoT Market Report 2017-2022

Subscription

Gain exclusive access to the IoT Analytics research stream by subscribing in our Membership area.

Newsletter

Sign up now for our newsletter and receive the latest IoT insights direct in your mailbox.

ABOUT

285

REPORT SAMPLE

© 2017 IoT Analytics. All rights reserved. 285

Authors

PADRAIG SCULLY

Padraig leads the market research team at IoT Analytics. He has several years of

experience in telco and technology research. Current focus areas include IoT security and

IoT platforms,

Email: padraig.scully@iot-analytics.com

LASSE VAN AKEN

Lasse is part of the market research team at IoT Analytics.

Contact Us

Do you have a question or any feedback on the report? Do you have other inquiries or ideas?

Then get in touch with the authors or contact IoT Analytics at:

ioT Analytics Gmbh Zirkusweg 2 20359 Hamburg

GERMANY info@iot-analytics.com

+49 (0) 40 63 911 891

ABOUT

REPORT SAMPLE

Copyright

© 2017 IoT Analytics GmbH. All rights reserved.

IoT Analytics is the leading provider of market and industry insights for

the Internet of Things (IoT) and for Industry 4.0.

This document is intended for general informational purposes only,

does not take into account the reader’s specific circumstances, and may

not reflect the most current developments. IoT Analytics disclaims, to

the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any and all liability for

the accuracy and completeness of the information in this document

and for any acts or omissions made based on such information. IoT

Analytics does not provide legal, regulatory, audit, or tax advice.

Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal

counsel or other licensed professionals.

For more information visit http://www.iot-analytics.com

REPORT SAMPLE