How Feasible are Passive Network Attacks on 5G Networks and Beyond? A Survey

We show here a brief breakdown of different attacks, principal targets of the attackers, and aims of network administrators that are tackled in this work.

Several surveys on traffic analysis have been published in recent years (see Fig. 3 for a timeline). Many of these [rahbari2015secrecy, spreitzer2017systematic, conti2018dark, salman2021data, kumar2021smartphone, papadogiannaki2021survey] address different aspects of side-channel-based attacks. None of them, however, examine the feasibility of adapting known passive attacks to 5G networks.

Rahbari et al. [rahbari2015secrecy] describe various passive (traffic analysis) and active (jamming) attacks based on side-channel information extraction from wireless communications. The authors argue that one cannot encrypt link-layer headers. Due to the large overhead associated with obfuscating packet streams, they advocate for physical-layer security techniques complementing packet payload encryption. While the work considers MIMO systems, it does not examine 5G or its radio-specific characteristics.

In [spreitzer2017systematic], Spreitzer et al. classify side-channel attacks in mobile networks. Their taxonomy covers all types of side-channel attacks, such as power analysis and electromagnetic measurements, not only network-related passive attacks. Attacks are categorized along two axes: whether they are active or passive, and the degree of invasiveness of the attacker. Since all side-channel attacks are included, passive network attacks are not the focus, and the classification does not take into account the specificities of cellular networks.

Conti et al. [conti2018dark] survey the state of the art in network traffic analysis for mobile users. The reviewed literature is categorized by (i) the goal of the analysis, (ii) the point where network traffic is captured (e.g., at the Access Point (AP) or on the device), (iii) the targeted mobile platform (e.g., Android or iOS), and (iv) applicability beyond traffic encryption (e.g., SSL/TLS or IPsec). The vast majority of capture points are either at the AP (assuming attackers have AP access or can eavesdrop identical traces), on the devices (assuming malware infection), or through wired, simulated, or emulated environments. In the context of eavesdropping cellular communication, none of these assumptions hold, and unstable wireless channels must be taken into account. Out of 60 surveyed works, only four [musa2012tracking, barbera2013signals, wang2015know, ruffing2016smartphone] assume monitoring of the network as the entry point, and all of them target Wi-Fi, which is considerably easier to eavesdrop than cellular communication.

Salman et al. [salman2020review, salman2021data] review machine learning methods for traffic classification. As most works focus on improving QoS, the surveyed approaches usually assume access to the full TCP/IP stack, with only the application payload encrypted. In [shi2021online], Shi et al. propose early traffic classification for mobile applications, but the assumed input is at the flow level, making it more relevant to network management policies than to passive attackers.

Kumar et al. [kumar2021smartphone] survey smartphone traffic analysis, dividing attacks into two categories: analysis of user behaviors (e.g., website fingerprinting, user fingerprinting, user action identification) and system identification (e.g., PII leakage, application, or OS identification). Their focus is on methods for malware detection, without attention to the type of underlying network.

Papadogiannaki and Ioannidis [papadogiannaki2021survey] survey applications, techniques, and countermeasures of traffic analysis over encrypted network traces. The work investigates whether traditional traffic processing systems can adapt to widespread encryption and explores alternatives to DPI for performance and QoS optimization. The surveyed works are classified by identification type (e.g., website, application, device, OS, PII, or location leakage), dataset availability, techniques used, and performance metrics. As with earlier surveys, the type of wireless communication is not considered.

Cao et al. [cao2019survey] examine security aspects of 5G, but do not evaluate the feasibility of known PNAs. Khan et al. [khan2019survey] provide a high-level overview of potential privacy breaches in 5G, yet without analyzing practical traffic analysis techniques or assessing whether Wi-Fi or LTE attacks can be extended to 5G.

Other works have addressed 5G and B5G security more broadly. Sandeepa et al. [Sandeepa_2022] present a survey of privacy issues in B5G, focusing on identity and location leakage, authentication, and regulation. Although comprehensive in taxonomy, it does not cover passive traffic analysis or side-channel exploitation. Ramezanpour et al. [ramezanpour2022securityprivacyvulnerabilities5g6g] survey security and privacy challenges at the intersection of 5G/6G and Wi-Fi 6, with emphasis on coexistence scenarios. While acknowledging side-channel risks, they do not assess whether known PNAs, such as fingerprinting or tracking, can be reproduced under 5G conditions.

More recent contributions include Harvanek et al. [s24175523], who provide a comprehensive survey of physical-layer security threats in 4G and 5G. Their analysis emphasizes jamming, spoofing, and signal-level eavesdropping, including rogue base station detection and Software-Defined Radio (SDR) (a radio device that can switch between different wireless communication standards using software, without needing new hardware [akeela2018software]) testbeds. However, they do not consider passive metadata-based attacks such as traffic fingerprinting. Wani et al. [wani2024security] provide a taxonomy of 5G Non-Standalone (NSA) vulnerabilities by surveying known 4G attacks and showing how they apply to current 5G NSA deployments. Their study spans both active and passive threats, and they experimentally validate a few exploits (such as an IMSI‑leak tracking attack) on commercial smartphones. However, they focus on cataloging these threats only in the NSA architecture. They note that even basic 5G traffic sniffing is challenging with today’s tools; they do not deeply investigate modern metadata‑analysis attacks like encrypted traffic fingerprinting or detailed geolocation in practical 5G networks.

Saeed et al. [saeed2025comprehensive] present a layered survey of 6G threats across the physical, connection, and service layers. Passive threats such as eavesdropping are included, but only at a conceptual level, without analysis of feasibility or SDR-based demonstrations. Devi et al. [DEVI2025100891] review physical-layer security techniques for 5G/6G, including artificial noise, cooperative relaying, and intelligent reflecting surfaces. While acknowledging eavesdropping risks, they do not analyze practical PNAs or side-channel exploitation.

Table I summarizes key surveys on traffic analysis and privacy/security in wireless networks, highlighting their scope, coverage of PNAs, and consideration of 5G or B5G/6G environments. As shown, while several surveys address side-channel attacks or encrypted traffic analysis, none provide a detailed evaluation of the feasibility of known PNAs in 5G or beyond 5G networks. In contrast, our work explicitly focuses on this gap, offering a systematic assessment of how previously demonstrated passive attacks could be applied or adapted to modern cellular networks, thereby bridging the gap between prior studies and the emerging privacy challenges in 5G and B5G contexts.

Packet trace analysis is a class of side-channel attacks [spreitzer2017systematic] that exploits metadata (such as packet sizes, arrival times, and flow direction) to infer sensitive information, even when traffic is encrypted at the transport or application layer (e.g., via HTTPS). PNAs rely entirely on metadata without requiring interaction with or modification of packets.

Classic ML methods such as k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Random Forests (RF) have been widely applied. For example, Reed et al. [reed2016leaky, reed2017identifying] demonstrated high-accuracy video fingerprinting over encrypted DASH traffic using kd-tree classifiers, including for Netflix streams. Taylor et al. [taylor2016appscanner, taylor2017robust] proposed AppScanner to identify 110 Android apps over encrypted HTTPS traffic with up to 99% accuracy, while Wang et al. [wang2015know] used RF classifiers to identify smartphone applications. More recently, deep learning (DL) approaches (including CNNs, LSTMs, and hybrid architectures) have achieved similar or higher accuracy for mobile and encrypted traffic classification [aceto2019mobile, aceto2020toward, rezaei2019large, d2021network]. These studies generally assume access to flows with bidirectional metadata.

Some works consider packet-level sequences with minimal visibility. For instance, Acar et al. [acar2020peek] inferred smart home device actions from Wi-Fi, ZigBee, and BLE traffic using only packet timing and size, while Meneghello et al. [meneghello2020smartphone] applied sequence-to-sequence learning over LTE PDCCH traffic for smartphone identification. Shapira et al. [shapira2019flowpic] and Montieri et al. [montieri2021packet] explored unsupervised and DL-based traffic classification at the flow or packet level.

Key types of PNAs demonstrated across networks include:

• •

  Website Fingerprinting (WF): Rimmer et al. [rimmer2017automated] achieved 96% accuracy in classifying visited websites over Tor using DL architectures such as stacked autoencoders, CNNs, and LSTMs. Juarez et al. [juarez2014critical] highlighted overfitting risks and practical challenges under real-world conditions. Most WF studies target Wi-Fi or VPN-encrypted traffic, with limited application to cellular networks.

• •

  Video and App Fingerprinting (VF/AF): Reed et al. [reed2016leaky, reed2017identifying] and Dubin et al. [dubin2017know] used kd-tree or SVM classifiers to identify encrypted video streams or smartphone applications. Petagna et al. [petagna2019peel] extended this to Tor, demonstrating app identification despite multi-hop encryption.

• •

  Smart Home and Behavioral Inference: Acar et al. [acar2020peek] and Aiolli et al. [aiolli2019mind] inferred device actions and cryptocurrency wallet activity from encrypted traffic. Conti et al. [conti2015can] and Muehlstein et al. [muehlstein2017analyzing] analyzed Android traffic to deduce user behavior and app usage patterns.

• •

  De-anonymization in Privacy-Enhancing Networks: Karunanayake et al. [karunanayake2021anonymisation] surveyed passive attacks on networks like Tor, including fingerprinting, timing correlation, and traffic confirmation attacks, highlighting that anonymizing overlays do not fully prevent side-channel leaks.

Overall, these studies illustrate that sensitive information can be extracted from encrypted traffic without active intervention. While most prior work focuses on Wi-Fi, VPN, or LTE, the feasibility of applying these techniques to 5G and beyond remains largely unexplored; a gap that this survey aims to address.

While passive attacks are well-documented in Wi-Fi and anonymizing networks, their extension to cellular networks, including LTE, 3G, and 4G, has also been demonstrated with varying degrees of success. Stöber et al [stober2013you] showed that even without payload access, user identification is possible over 3G and LTE networks by analyzing traffic patterns. Their work relied on timing and volume features, enabling fingerprinting of smartphone users based solely on metadata. Similarly, Meneghello et al [meneghello2020smartphone] applied DL (1D-CNN) to LTE’s control channel data (PDCCH) and demonstrated accurate fingerprinting of specific smartphones using only physical layer side-channel features. Website fingerprinting over cellular links has also been shown to be effective. Kohls et al [kohls2019lost] and Rupprecht et al [rupprecht2019breaking] performed passive Layer 2 traffic analysis in LTE networks and successfully inferred visited websites by observing encrypted traffic in the RLC (Radio Link Control³³3The Radio Link Control layer handles segmentation, reassembly, error correction, and reliable delivery of data between the UE and the base station in LTE and 5G NR.) and PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol⁴⁴4The PDCP layer provides header compression, encryption, integrity protection, and in-order delivery of user-plane and control-plane data in LTE and 5G NR.) layers. These studies highlight that despite encryption at upper layers, the structure and scheduling behavior of lower layer traffic reveals enough to compromise user privacy. Khanna et al [khanna2015remote] proposed remote device fingerprinting techniques based on passive measurement of MAC/IP behavior, clock skew, and network layer metadata. Though not limited to LTE, their methods are particularly effective in mobile networks where device-specific timing characteristics can be measured due to frequent reconnections or network handovers. Trinh et al [trinh2020mobile] introduced an approach using LTE control channel features to classify the applications and services accessed by a device. Using DL models, they demonstrated that even control plane metadata, such as resource allocation and scheduling information, can be exploited to infer sensitive information without touching the encrypted payload.

These LTE/4G-specific attacks serve as important baselines for understanding what passive analysis can achieve in mobile environments. However, extending these attacks to 5G introduces several new challenges.

Unlike LTE, 5G employs strong link-layer encryption, beamforming, and massive MIMO. These features make it significantly harder for an attacker to capture usable traffic unless they are directly aligned with the transmission beam. Furthermore, 5G traffic patterns are more dynamic, fragmented, and often multiplexed across services, making side-channel separation more complex. Norrman et al [norrman2016protecting] and Khanna et al [khan2018defeating] studied user privacy threats from rogue base stations and demonstrated possible identity exposure during 5G synchronization. Capturing usable traces in 5G typically requires SDRs and specialized demodulation tools. Works like Wei et et al [wei2016software], Duarte et et al [duarte2019software], and Vo-Huu et et al [vo2016fingerprinting] explored SDR-based fingerprinting and signal extraction methods, but 5G’s physical layer complexity presents practical limitations. Additionally, concurrent application traffic causes flow interleaving, making separation and classification harder, especially when MAC-layer encryption is used. Classifiers often assume clean data; an unrealistic expectation in 5G’s dynamic environment. Also, traffic varies significantly across devices, complicating generalization. Aceto et et al [aceto2019mobile] and Ismailaj et al [ismailaj2021deep] note that even state-of-the-art DL models underperform on noisy, mixed data or new devices. Nevertheless, increased deployment density of 5G small cells may inadvertently expose users to attackers within physical proximity, potentially making some forms of passive monitoring easier than in previous generations.

The 5G wireless technology is the basis of a new kind of wireless network that enables an omnipresent connectivity to virtually link everyone and everything including machines, objects, and devices. 5G wireless networks are built to deliver higher multi-Gbps peak data streams, ultra low latency, more reliability, vast network capacity, and improved availability, uniformly to more users [dahlman20205g].

5G New Radio (5G NR) is a new air interface deployed for 5G. NR provides forward compatibility within NR and interworks with LTE via NSA (EN-DC⁵⁵5EN-DC (E-UTRAN New Radio – Dual Connectivity.) is 5G NSA feature that allows a device to connect simultaneously to a 4G LTE eNodeB (anchor for control and signaling) and a 5G NR gNodeB (for additional high-speed data), combining both for higher throughput.), however, it is not air-interface backward-compatible with LTE. 5G NR has two broad deployment modes: NSA (EN-DC), where LTE anchors the control plane and NR primarily adds user plane capacity, and Standalone (SA), where NR carries both control and user planes on a 5G core. Operators may use Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) to run LTE and NR in the same band though this mode is optional and deployment-specific. As technology matures, the SA mode operates with the 5G core network and hence at both the control and user planes. In the SA mode, the 5G Packet Core architecture is fully used instead of the 4G Evolved Packet Core run in the 4G LTE network (see Fig. 4 for a summary.)

The foundational elements of 5G NR are the following. NR reuses Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Cyclic Prefix OFDM (CP-OFDM) waveforms (also used in LTE and Wi-Fi), but it does not reuse Wi-Fi protocols. Namely, wave forms based on OFDM and multiple access techniques are optimized. A common flexible framework will enable efficient multiplexing of diverse 5G services and provide forward compatibility for future services. Advanced wireless technologies delivers new levels of performance and efficiency that enables the wide range of 5G services. 5G services are categorized into three pillars, namely enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) delivering high throughput; ultra-reliable and Low-latency Communications (uRLLC) for high reliability and availability (not security); and massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC) for low-cost, low-energy devices with small data volumes at mass scale.

While the main enablers of 5G include larger bandwidths in the millimeter wave (mmWave) frequency bands, densification via small-cell HetNets, and massive MIMO with narrow beams [khwandah2021massive], in practice 5G capacity is delivered by a layered spectrum mix across low-, mid-, and mmWave bands, with mid-band carrying most of today’s load and mmWave supplying extreme peak rates where deployed. In addition, due to the shortcomings Orthogonal Multiple Access (OMA) lacking sufficient spectral efficiency to handle the foreseen unprecedented increase of data traffic None-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) has become a promising remedy. (Note, however, that NR does not standardize general power-domain NOMA in current releases). Furthermore, NR relies on Frequency Division Duplex (simultaneous Uplink/Downlink on separate bands) and Time Division Duplex (time-separated Uplink/Downlink). In-band full-duplex on the same frequency is being studied but is not required or widely deployed, however, some researchers advocate it for potential throughput gains.

Eavesdropping 5G communications is particularly challenging as most passive attacks are designed to defeat WiFi-connected devices and only a few of them specifically target cellular networks. Contrary to commodity 802.11 network cards that can easily be turned into monitor mode and capture nearby traffic at the packet-level, extracting a packet sequence (amount of transmitted data, traffic direction and timing information) from cellular communication usually requires to demodulate and demultiplex the physical layer. As far as we know, no commercially available devices usually come with this possibility and SDR is required. Open-source LTE passive tooling is well established, and while several 5G attacks have been demonstrated using adapted or partially open tools (e.g., srsRAN [srsranSrsRANProject] or OWL [rupprecht2019breaking]), to the best of our knowledge, no complete, public end-to-end 5G passive monitoring stack is yet available. In particular, the eavesdropper-captured signal may be unstable due to 5G beamforming, which increases directionality and reduces off-target radiation but is not a security mechanism; side-lobes and multipath still leak energy. A well-equipped adversary may use antenna arrays and channel estimation to approximate the beam and passively recover traffic, though this remains technically demanding. We note that all tested attacks have been obtained on stable packet traces. Also, in over-the-air packet traces, NR’s Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP⁶⁶6PDCP is a sublayer of the LTE and 5G NR radio protocol stack that operates above the RLC layer and below the IP layer, responsible for header compression, ciphering, integrity protection, and in-order delivery of user-plane and control-plane data.)-layer ciphering makes it hard to separate the individual flows without the keys. The consequence is that when analyzing the captured packet bursts, noise made by concurrent and unrelated applications are mixed in the same collected traffic. Hence, classification methods must be capable of handling rather noisy traffic logs. On top of that, packet traces vary significantly from device to device and data availability covering a wide range of products is often low. In addition, classification accuracy is rather reduced when a ML model trained on a given device or a given brand is used on a different one. This makes scaling the experimentation much harder. At last, although this work focuses on passive attacks, it is worth noting that 5G mmWave communication is particularly vulnerable to targeted jamming during initial access and beam tracking; this vulnerability is largely mmWave-centric and scenario-dependent (sub-6 GHz NR behaves differently) [mezzavilla2018end].

Building on the innovations of 5G, the evolution toward Beyond‑5G and early 6G architectures is focused on extending and enhancing the capabilities of 5G by supporting emerging service classes such as ultra-Massive Machine-Type Communications (u-mMTC), extremely enhanced Mobile Broadband (eX‑eMBB), and 6G Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications (6G‑URLLC), while sustaining sustainability, intelligence, and ubiquitous coverage [khalid2021advanced] (See Fig. 5 for a summary).

Key technical trends and architectural elements of B5G/6G include:

• •

  Expansion into mmWave and THz Spectrum: Expansion into the mmWave and THz bands, coupled with (ultra)massive MIMO and highly directional beamforming, is being investigated for terabit-class peak physical layer data rates in B5G/6G; realizing such gains end-to-end will require new RF/antenna hardware and accurate channel/propagation models [giordani2020toward].

• •

  Integration of AI/ML: B5G embeds AI-native mechanisms, enabling real-time resource control, predictive network slicing, and self-healing capabilities; which means transitioning toward zero-trust security frameworks [tariq2020speculative].

• •

  Edge Computing and Distributed Intelligence: Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) are combined with Information-Centric Networking (ICN) to enable ultra-low latency while distributing data processing across dense, heterogeneous access points [9845700].

• •

  Integration with Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTNs): Use of mmWave and THz bands, as well as satellite and aerial links introduces non-stationary, directional transmissions and multi-modal connectivity, which necessitates novel channel models for propagation and path loss [3gppSatelliteComponents].

• •

  Standardization and Roadmapping: Standardization efforts for B5G are underway through various international bodies.

  • –

    3GPP Release 18 (5G-Advanced) brings enhanced MIMO, RedCap for IoT, NTN support, and embedded AI/ML capabilities [mourad2020baseline].

  • –

    B5G/6G efforts, led by initiatives such as Japan’s NICT, ETSI’s RIS/THz/ENI working groups, and ITU’s IMT‑2030 roadmaps, focus on defining architectures that blend terrestrial, satellite, and intelligent surface technologies [europaBeyond2024].

To assess the practical feasibility of PNAs in 5G and B5G environments, we adopted a targeted selection strategy rather than an exhaustive enumeration of all existing attack literature. Our primary objective is not to catalog every theoretical variation of traffic analysis, but to identify distinct classes of attack vectors that have been proven effective in previous generations (Wi-Fi, LTE) and rigorously evaluate their reproducibility under 5G physical and protocol constraints.

We screened literature published over the last 12 years (2013–2025) to capture the evolution of attacks from the early 4G era to current 5G deployments. From an initial pool of hundreds of studies, we filtered for works that met the following inclusion criteria:

• •

  Peer-Reviewed Validation: Only works published in reputable journals and conferences were considered to ensure technical soundness.

• •

  Impact and Relevance: We selected the top-cited papers per year that introduced novel methodologies (e.g., the first instance of video fingerprinting using variable bit rate, or the first deep learning-based website fingerprinting attack).

• •

  Reproducibility: Priority was given to studies providing clear threat models and experimental setups (e.g., specific SDR hardware or dataset characteristics) essential for feasibility analysis.Reproducibility: Priority was given to studies providing clear threat models and experimental setups (e.g., specific SDR hardware or dataset characteristics) essential for feasibility analysis.

• •

  Threat Model: We focus in this study on two main types of PNAs. We investigated: (i) packet trace analysis based on captured information, and (ii) passive localization or tracking of users.

This process resulted in a core set of 41 seminal works. This dataset represents the ”state-of-the-art” in attack sophistication. By focusing on these high-impact exemplars, we can perform a deep-dive technical analysis of why specific mechanisms (e.g., packet size side-channels) succeed or fail in the face of 5G beamforming and encryption, providing a qualitative depth that a broader quantitative survey would lack.

We detail below 41 selected works that form the basis of our analysis (see Table II for an overview):

We noticed that the presented works primarily splits into two main categories based on the nature of the input used by the attack: works based on simple packet sequences, and works based on structured flow-level data. But with the emergence of 5G and beyond, a third distinct family is increasingly present; relying on control-plane or physical-layer features (see Fig. 6 for a statistic):

1. 1.

   Packet sequences as input. This represents a small minority of all works that assumes as input the simplest and easiest to acquire side-channel information: a sequence of packet lengths and times. That is a sequence of tuples of the form: $p_{i}=\langle t_{i},s_{i},d_{i}\rangle$ where the $i$-th captured packet is only represented by its timestamp $t_{i}$ with microsecond precision, a size in bytes $s_{i}$ and a binary direction $d_{i}$ (that is either uplink or downlink). A packet burst is often defined as a subset of a packet sequence $[p_{i},p_{j}]$ so that all packets are transmitted within some predefined time threshold, that is $t_{j}-t_{i}\leq\theta$. Bursts may alternatively be defined by characterizing their unusual high bitrate in comparison to average traffic, e.g. identifying $[p_{i},p_{j}]$ as part of a downlink burst if

   $$\frac{1}{t_{j}-t_{i}}\left(\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}i\leq k\leq j\\ d_{k}=\text{downlink}\end{subarray}}s_{k}\right)>\theta,$$

   where $\theta$ can be constant or made dependent on average transfer rate.

   Several works from Table II rely exclusively on such packet-level metadata, without reconstructing sessions or requiring transport or network-layer headers. Early examples include Barbera et al. [barbera2013signals] and Stöber [stober2013you], who exploited Wi-Fi probe request frames and LTE/3G background packet timings, respectively, to infer user presence or device identity from raw packet traces. Similarly, Wang et al. [wang2015know] and Ruffing et al. [ruffing2016smartphone] used packet sizes and interarrival times to identify mobile applications or operating systems directly from encrypted wireless traffic.

   A number of later studies further refined this packet-level approach by focusing on burst structures. Reed et al. [reed2016leaky] analyzed encrypted HTTP adaptive streaming (DASH) traffic, showing that pieces of information such as packet sizes can uniquely identify video streaming content. Björklund’s subsequent large-scale extension [usenixEndangeredPrivacy] confirmed that such burst fingerprints remain effective even when traffic is tunneled through VPNs or over different network technologies.

   Other packet-sequence attacks focus on user or device behavior inference. Saltaformaggio et al. [saltaformaggio2016eavesdropping] detected in-app user activities by observing encrypted traffic patterns, while Acar et al. [acar2020peek] applied similar reasoning to smart-home environments, where device state changes generate distinctive packet bursts across Wi-Fi, ZigBee, and BLE. Finally, Marañón et al. [10823417] demonstrated that encrypted 5G traffic retains similar burst-level side channels, where only packet timing and size sequences are sufficient for mobile application classification.

2. 2.

   Bi-directional flows as input. These represent the majority of the literature and in many cases, larger-scale results [rezaei2019large] have been obtained. Those works take as input network flows, which is requiring packet capture with at least clear IP headers. This information is for example not available to a simple eavesdropper attacker on a wireless channel encrypted at the MAC layer but requiring network infiltration or network administration rights. Some of these works hence depart from the attack-perspective and rather take an administrator point of view intending to replace DPI and infer traffic from its own network beyond application-layer or transport-layer encryption. Most use bidirectional flows, where traffic in both direction is aggregated in the same stream (i.e., source IP/port and destination IP/port are interchangeable).

   A first family of works focuses on OS, browser, or device fingerprinting using network flow metadata. For instance, Chen et al. [chen2014fingerprinting] showed that operating systems could be identified from ISP-level TCP/IP flow headers, while Muehlstein et al. [muehlstein2017analyzing] and Rimmer et al. [rimmer2017automated] applied machine learning to HTTPS and Tor flows to infer client OS, browser, and visited websites from encrypted traffic. These approaches rely on aggregated session-level features such as packet counts, directions, and timing distributions, extracted from bidirectional flows rather than from isolated packet sequences.

   A large group of works targets mobile application identification from encrypted flow features. Taylor et al. [taylor2016appscanner] identified Android apps from bidirectional TLS flow characteristics, later refined by Aceto et al. [aceto2019mobile, aceto2020toward] through DL architectures operating on full Wi-Fi or LTE flows. Similarly, Rezaei et al. [rezaei2019large] and D’Angelo et al. [d2021network] leveraged CNN–LSTM and autoencoder models on per-flow features (packet size, direction, and inter-arrival time) to classify encrypted traffic at scale. Follow-up works such as Wang et al. [wang2020automatic], Gijón et al. [gijon2020encrypted], Montieri et al. [montieri2021packet], and Zhao et al. [zhao2021optimized] explored both supervised and unsupervised learning on bidirectional flows to predict app activities, cluster traffic, or recognize services from transport-layer metadata.

   Several other works examined encrypted traffic under realistic network settings and routing layers. Petagna et al. [petagna2019peel] analyzed Tor traffic by reconstructing TCP flows to deanonymize Android apps, while Shapira et al. [shapira2019flowpic] converted bidirectional flows into two-dimensional temporal–size histograms for CNN classification. Ateniese et al. [ateniese2015no] demonstrated that coarse user location inference is possible from TLS-encrypted flow metadata alone, and Cheng et al. [cheng2023watching] reconstructed VoLTE/VoNR call flows to recover session-level metadata in LTE/5G settings. Finally, Xiong et al. [xiong20235g] analyzed GTP/IP bidirectional flows in 6G UAV backhauls for application recognition.

   Finally, the works of Dubin et al. [dubin2017know], Reed and Kranch [reed2017identifying], and Björklund et al. [10060390], which focused on video traffic identification, grouped packets belonging to a single streaming session into a flow using transport identifiers (such as IP/port tuples and TLS/HTTP session metadata). From these grouped packets, the authors extract ordered burst sequences capturing burst timing and burst size in byte.

3. 3.

   Control-plane and physical-layer inputs. While most classical approaches rely on packet or flow-level metadata, a distinct class of recent works has emerged that bypasses traditional network-layer inputs entirely and uses non user-plane data. These attacks exploit control-plane messages or physical-layer features (such as radio signal structure, scheduling metadata, or uplink feedback) to infer user activity or presence. This is especially relevant in 5G and beyond, where PDCP encryption, beamforming, and decentralized architectures make extracting flows or even packets increasingly difficult.

   1. (a)

      Control-plane inputs: These studies operate at the signaling or protocol-control level and use decoded messages exchanged between the user equipment and the network (e.g., RRC, NAS, DCI, or PDCCH). They generally require software-defined radios or access to decoded traces but provide insights unavailable at the user plane. Early LTE-focused efforts such as Kohls et al. [kohls2019lost] and Rupprecht et al. [rupprecht2019breaking] revealed that even encrypted LTE traffic leaks identity and browsing information through link-layer scheduling and control identifiers. Later, Meneghello et al. [meneghello2020smartphone] and Trinh et al. [trinh2020mobile] analyzed the LTE downlink control channel (PDCCH) to fingerprint devices and identify applications directly from decoded DCI messages. With the advent of 5G, this line of work intensified: Budykho et al. [budykho2023fine] demonstrated user linkability via RRC signaling analysis, while Wan et al. [wan2024nr] built a passive 5G NR decoder that extracts telemetry and scheduling metadata from PDCCH/DCI messages. Similarly, Wani et al. [wani2024security] exploited 5G NSA attach procedures to expose persistent identifiers from RRC/NAS exchanges, and Ludant et al. [ludant20235g] showed that user presence can be detected by monitoring decoded NR control messages.

   2. (b)

      Physical-layer inputs: At an even lower layer, several attacks rely directly on radio signal features or measurements rather than protocol messages. Yang et al. [yang2016passive] first demonstrated that Wi-Fi clients can be localized using RSSI fingerprints without any packet or flow information. Kotuliak et al. [kotuliak2022ltrack] extended this idea to LTE by inferring user position from physical-layer timing metrics such as Timing Advance and Time-of-Arrival. More recent 5G studies leverage wideband SDR capture and physical feedback channels: Jawne et al. [jawne2025ai] used deep learning on RF spectrograms to fingerprint individual 5G devices, while Zhang et al. [zhang2025passive] extracted HARQ ACK/NACK sequences from the 5G PUCCH to infer application-level activity.

The objective of the survey is to produce a feasibility analysis of the difficulty of reproducing known PNAs in 5G/B5G networks. While many fingerprinting and inference attacks have been successfully demonstrated in WiFi and LTE contexts, the jump to 5G and B5G introduces new challenges and opportunities that impact attacker capabilities. All the following aspects of practicality for an attacker to perform the attack are explored and analyzed (see Table III for a summary.):

• •

  Is the needed hardware easily available on the market? Since commercial LTE and even more 5G devices do not offer network monitoring functions, a custom-based setting (antenna within appropriate frequency range and some software-defined radio code) is likely required without access to the very few closed-source professional equipment.

• •

  5G radio communications are much more spatially selective than in previous systems. How close does an eavesdropper need to be to capture enough data?

• •

  5G antennas are deployed closer to the users. Can this facilitate privacy leaks following the popular belief, or, on the contrary, make the reproduction of known attacks an even more challenging task?

In earlier work, many attacks targeted WiFi-connected devices, largely due to ease of access and high bandwidth. WiFi traffic can be captured using commodity devices. In contrast, cellular traffic, particularly in 5G, poses several physical, protocol-layer, and resource constraints that affect attack reproducibility and scale.

We start here by analyzing whether the surveyed PNAs in Section V can be reproducible on 5G networks. This helps us situate where the current literature is headed. We consider in our assessment a passive and external attacker. We classified the works into 4 levels of feasibility (see Table IV for a summary).

The classification of prior works reveals clear trends in the feasibility of PNAs on 5G. Attacks that relied heavily on packet-level visibility or higher-layer traffic flows (e.g., TLS/HTTPS metadata, transport-level burst features) largely fall into Class 1 and Class 2, since encryption and beamforming prevent external adversaries from reconstructing such data in 5G. In contrast, the attacks that remain feasible are those exploiting side-channels at the control plane or radio access layer. This includes works that decode PDCCH/DCI scheduling, measure timing signals, or analyze packet bursts indirectly observable at the air interface. These attacks form the bulk of Class 3, showing that while they require non-trivial expertise and specialized SDR setups, they remain reproducible in 5G. Interestingly, no study reached Class 4: even attacks demonstrated directly on 5G involve custom hardware, tuned decoders, or controlled conditions. The absence of “easily reproducible” PNAs underscores that 5G has significantly raised the entry barrier compared to LTE and Wi-Fi, shifting the attack surface towards complex side-channels rather than straightforward traffic analysis.

A second important observation emerging from this study is the clear correspondence between the type of input data used by prior attacks and their reproducibility on 5G. As summarized in Table IV, most Class 1 works rely on flows as input, i.e., transport- or application-layer aggregates that are fully hidden behind PDCP encryption and GTP encapsulation in 5G. These dependencies on higher-layer visibility explain why such attacks are now infeasible. In contrast, the majority of Class 2 attacks operate on packet sequences, using timing and size patterns as side channels. These features still exist conceptually in 5G; but recovering them requires extensive SDR-based demodulation and PDCP event reconstruction, hence their placement in the “reproducible with extensive efforts” class. Finally, nearly all Class 3 works exploit control-plane messages or physical-layer features such as DCI scheduling, uplink feedback, or RF characteristics. These elements remain observable at the air interface and therefore represent the most practical input sources for modern PNAs.

Looking forward, this classification has important implications for B5G/6G. Since most Class 1 and Class 2 attacks are already infeasible in 5G, they are unlikely to reappear in more secure architectures [abdel2022security, alqwider2024combat]. The attacks that deserve closer attention are those in Class 3, these represent the most reproducible threats today and may still be relevant if future systems do not fully obfuscate scheduling or timing information. However, with trends in B5G/6G towards randomized control channels, beam obfuscation, and AI-driven scheduling, it is reasonable to expect that even Class 3 attacks will become increasingly difficult, migrating toward Class 2 or even Class 1. In this sense, a new classification table for B5G/6G as Table IV is not strictly necessary: the current analysis already suggests that the feasibility of PNAs will continue to shrink, with adversaries needing ever more effort, expertise, and privileged access to reproduce them.

We summarize these findings in Table V which outlines the technical and practical constraints that further limit the feasibility and reproducibility of PNAs. First, many 5G PNA studies assume clean, high-quality traces, but in real deployments, packet captures are often incomplete or degraded, especially under beam misalignment or high mobility, which dramatically reduces the reliability of ML-based classifiers. Second, directive antennas and beamforming in 5G and B5G impose spatial constraints: an eavesdropper outside the main beam may receive little to no usable signal, making passive sniffing highly sensitive to positioning and environment. Third, control-plane leakage via DCI decoding or RRC signaling may provide useful side-channel information, but it’s increasingly recognized as a substitute for DPI, carrying potential risks related to traffic censorship or user fingerprinting even under encryption [rupprecht2019breaking]. Fourth, edge deployments and V2X scenarios, characterized by rapid node movement and dynamic channels, introduce further challenges; propagation conditions vary dramatically, making attacker alignment and signal acquisition at the edge an open research question. Fifth, most existing studies assume idealized lab settings, limiting their generalizability. This is supported by analyses on the importance of realistic labeling and trace collection for accurate evaluation of ML models in networking. Finally, at the B5G/6G frontier, no open passive sniffer stacks currently exist, and most experimentation is confined to proprietary testbeds. The use of higher-frequency bands (mmWave, THz), tighter beam steering, and adaptive transmission schemes makes passive eavesdropping practically infeasible under current conditions.