Advertisement

Availability Models of the Healthcare Internet of Things System Taking into Account Countermeasures Selection

  • Anastasiia StrielkinaEmail author
  • Vyacheslav Kharchenko
  • Dmytro Uzun
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1007)

Abstract

An active infiltration of information technology in the healthcare sector has led to a fundamental change in people’s quality of life. Networked medical and healthcare devices and their applications are already creating an Internet of Medical Things which is aimed at better health monitoring and preventive care. But the new concepts and applying of new technologies bring certain risks including failures of devices, infrastructure which may lead to the worst outcome. In this regard, the security and safety problems of this technology using increase rapidly. This paper touches upon the issue of the healthcare Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure failures and attacks on components and complete system. The purpose of the paper is to develop and research the availability models of a healthcare IoT system regarding failures and attacks on components. A detailed analysis of an architecture of healthcare IoT infrastructure is given. The main causes of the healthcare IoT based system failures are considered. This paper presents an approach to develop a Markov models set for a healthcare IoT infrastructure that allows considering safety and security issues. Much attention is given to developing and research of the Markov model of a healthcare IoT system considering failures of components. The analysis of obtained simulation results showed the rates that have the greatest influence on the availability function of the healthcare IoT system. In addition, it is presented a case study with a game theoretical approach to select countermeasure tools.

Keywords

Attack Cloud Countermeasure Failure Game theory Insulin pump Internet of Things Markov model Security Vulnerability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper implies results obtained during involvement in the Erasmus+ programme educational project ALIOT «Internet of Things: Emerging Curriculum for Industry and Human Applications» (reference number 573818-EPP-1-2016-1-UK-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP, web-site http://aliot.eu.org) in which the appropriate course is under development (ITM4 - IoT for health systems). Within its framework, the teaching modules related to IoT systems modelling were developed. The authors would like to thank colleagues on this project, within the framework of which the results of this work were discussed.

The authors also would like to show deep gratitude to colleagues from Department of Computer Systems, Networks and Cybersecurity of National Aerospace University n. a. M. Ye. Zhukovsky «KhAI» for their patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques of this paper.

This research is also supported by the project STARC (Methodology of SusTAinable Development and InfoRmation Technologies of Green Computing and Communication) funded by Department of Education and Science of Ukraine.

References

  1. 1.
    Understanding the Internet of Things (IoT), p. 14. GSM Association, London (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Press Release: Global Internet of Things market to grow to 27 billion devices, generating USD3 trillion revenue in 2025. https://machinaresearch.com/news/press-release-global-internet-of-things-market-to-grow-to-27-billion-devices-generating-usd3-trillion-revenue-in-2025/. Accessed 02 Mar 2018
  3. 3.
    A Decade of Digital: Keeping Pace with Transformation, 10th edn, p. 30. PwC’s Digital IQ Research (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vermesan, O., Friess, P.: Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems. River Publishers, Delft (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Healthcare Organization: Global Report on Diabetes (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Islam, S.M.R., Kwak, D., Kabir, M.D.H., Hossain, M., Kwak, K.-S.: The internet of things for health care: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access 3, 678–708 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2437951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laplante, P.A., Kassab, M., Laplante, N.L., Voas, J.M.: Building caring healthcare systems in the internet of things. IEEE Syst. J. 1–8 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/jsyst.2017.2662602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Applied Safety Science and Engineering Techniques. Taking Hazard Based Safety Engineering (HBSE) to the Next Level, p. 11. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goševa-Popstojanova, K., Trivedi, K.S.: Architecture-based approach to reliability assessment of software systems. Perform. Eval. 45(2–3), 179–204 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-5316(01)00034-7CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kharchenko, V., Kolisnyk, M., Piskachova, I., Bardis, N.: Reliability and security issues for IoT-based smart business center: architecture and Markov model. In: 2016 Third International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sciences and in Industry (MCSI), Chania, pp. 313–318 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/mcsi.2016.064
  11. 11.
    Strielkina, A., Uzun, D., Kharchenko, V.: Modelling of healthcare IoT using the queueing theory. In: 2017 9th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS), Bucharest, pp. 313–318 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/idaacs.2017.8095207
  12. 12.
    Strielkina, A., Kharchenko, V., Uzun, D.: Availability models for healthcare IoT systems: classification and research considering attacks on vulnerabilities. In: 2018 9th IEEE International Conference on Dependable Systems, Services and Technologies, DESSERT’2018, Kyiv, pp. 48–65 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1109/dessert.2018.8409099
  13. 13.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Device Evaluation: Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Medical Devices: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research: Guidance for Industry: Q9 Quality Risk Management (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO 14971:2007 Medical Devices – Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trivedi, K.S., Selvamuthu, D.D.: Markov modeling in reliability. In: Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment. Wiley, Hoboken (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat03635
  17. 17.
    Nicol, D.M., Sanders, W.H., Trivedi, K.S.: Model-based evaluation: from dependability to security. IEEE Trans. Depend. Secure Comput. 01(1), 48–65 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1109/tdsc.2004.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roy, S., Ellis, C., Shiva, S., Dasgupta, D., Shandilya, V., Wu, Q.: A survey of game theory as applied to network security. In: 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2010.35
  19. 19.
    Chung, K., Kamhoua, C.A., Kwiat, K.A., Kalbarczyk, Z.T., Iyer, R.K.: Game theory with learning for cyber security monitoring. In: 2016 IEEE 17th International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE) (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/hase.2016.48
  20. 20.
    Maksimović, M.V., Vujović, V., Periśić, B.: A custom internet of things healthcare system. In: 2015 10th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Aveiro, pp. 1–6 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/cisti.2015.7170415
  21. 21.
    Malik, M.A.: Internet of Things (IoT) Healthcare Market by Component (Implantable Sensor Devices Wearable Sensor Devices System and Software) Application (Patient Monitoring Clinical Operation and Workflow Optimization Clinical Imaging in Fitness and Wellness Measurement) - Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast 2014–2021. Allied Market Research, p. 124 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 9th edn. Pearson, London (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, Y., Jones, P.L., Jetley, R.: A hazard analysis for a generic insulin infusion pump. J. Diab. Sci. Technol. 4(2), 263–283 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681000400207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wetterneck, T.B., et al.: Using failure mode and effects analysis to plan implementation of smart i.v. pump technology. Smart i.v. Pump Technol. 63, 1528–1538 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rafeh, R., Rabiee, A.: Towards the design of safety-critical software. J. Appl. Res. Technol. 11(5), 683–694 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1665-6423(13)71576-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klonoff, D.C., Reyes, J.S.: Insulin pump safety meeting: summary report. J. Diab. Sci. Technol. 3(2), 396–402 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1177/193229680900300224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guenego, A., Bouzillé, G., Breitel, S., Esvant, A., Poirier, J.-Y., et al.: Insulin pump failures: has there been an improvement? Update of a prospective observational study. Diab. Technol. Ther. 18(12), 820–824 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2016.0265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharma, Y., Javadi, B., Si, W., Sunb, D.: Reliability and energy efficiency in cloud computing systems: survey and taxonomy. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 74, 66–85 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2016.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reliability Pillar: AWS Well-Architected Framework. Amazon Web Services, p. 45 (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yanovsky, M., Yanovskaya, O., Kharchenko, V.: Analysis of methods for providing availability and accessibility of cloud services. In: 2016 12th International Conference on ICT in Education, Research and Industrial Applications. Integration, Harmonization and Knowledge Transfer, Kyiv, pp. 414–426 (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cloud Computing Vulnerability Incidents: A Statistical Overview, p. 21. Cloud Vulnerabilities Working Group (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McAfee Labs Threat Report, 13 p. (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abomhara, M., Kien, G.M.: Cyber security and the Internet of Things: vulnerabilities, threats, intruders and attacks. J. Cyber Secur. Mob. 4(1), 65–88 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.13052/jcsm2245-1439.414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farooq, M., Waseem, M., Khairi, A., Mazhar, S.: A critical analysis on the security concerns of Internet of Things (loT). In: International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 111, 6 p. (2015).  https://doi.org/10.5120/19547-1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nawir, M., et al: Internet of Things (IoT): taxonomy of security attacks. In: 3rd International Conference on Electronic Design, pp. 321–326 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/iced.2016.7804660
  36. 36.
    Humayed, A., Lin, J., Li, F., Luo, B.: Cyber-physical systems security—a survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 4(6), 1802–1831 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2703172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaspersky Security Bulletin: Overall statistics for 2017 Kaspersky Lab, 29 p. (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    The State of Industrial Cybersecurity 2017. The Business Advantage Group Limited, 23 p. (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bell, G., Ebert, M.: Health care and cyber security: increasing threats require increased capabilities. In: KPMG International, USA, 7 p. (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Le Bris, A., El Asri, W.: State of Cybersecurity & Cyber Threats in Healthcare Organizations. ESSEC Business School, 12 p. (2016)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    The State of Cybersecurity in Healthcare Organizations in 2016. Ponemone Institute, 32 p. (2016)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Strielkina, A., Tetskyi, A., Selin, B., Solovyov, O., Uzun, D.: Service for vulnerabilities analysis and security assessment of open source systems. CERes J. 1(2), 53–64 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Aerospace University “KhAI”KharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations