{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01701093560145808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.195488721804511, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Lemon by Any Other Label

Apparent under-investment in IoT security is often explained by the lack of consumer demand engendered by information asymmetries. One proposed solution is to create IoT security labels as a market signal of differentiation. Such labeling may be binary, graded, or descriptive. Each label type can be further differentiated based on distinct implementations. This paper surveys the existing efforts to create IoT security labels along with the inherent limitations of individual approaches. Overall, we find that there is limited research in this area, which makes it difficult to ascertain the components of an effective IoT security label. We recommend that label designs should limit complexity and leverage existing institutions, such as trade groups, for sustainability as well as adoption.