Ensuring Data Integrity in Fog Computing Based Health-Care Systems

  • Abdulwahab AlazebEmail author
  • Brajendra Panda
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11611)


The advancement of information technology in coming years will bring significant changes to the way healthcare data is processed. Technologies such as cloud computing, fog computing, and the Internet of things (IoT) will offer healthcare providers and consumers opportunities to obtain effective and efficient services via real-time data exchange. However, as with any computer system, these services are not without risks. There is the possibility that systems might be infiltrated by malicious users and, as a result, data could be corrupted, which is a cause for concern. Once an attacker damages a set of data items, the damage can spread through the database. When valid transactions read corrupted data, they can update other data items based on the value read. Given the sensitive nature of healthcare data and the critical need to provide real-time access for decision-making, it is vital that any damage done by a malicious transaction and spread by valid transactions must be corrected immediately and accurately. Here, we present two models for using fog computing in healthcare: an architecture using fog modules with heterogeneous data, and another using fog modules with homogeneous data. We propose a unique approach for each module to assess the damage caused by malicious transactions, so that original data may be recovered and affected transactions may be identified for future investigations.


Fog databases Healthcare systems Malicious transactions Affected transactions Data integrity 


  1. 1.
    Aazam, M., Hung, P.P., Huh, E.N.: Smart gateway based communication for cloud of things. In: 2014 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akrivopoulos, O., Chatzigiannakis, I., Tselios, C., Antoniou, A.: On the deployment of healthcare applications over fog computing infrastructure. In: 2017 IEEE 41st Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), vol. 2, pp. 288–293. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Janabi, S., Al-Shourbaji, I., Shojafar, M., Shamshirband, S.: Survey of main challenges (security and privacy) in wireless body area networks for healthcare applications. Egypt. Inform. J. 18(2), 113–122 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ammann, P., Jajodia, S., Liu, P.: Recovery from malicious transactions. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 14(5), 1167–1185 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azimi, I., et al.: Hich: Hierarchical fog-assisted computing architecture for healthcare IoT. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. (TECS) 16(5s), 174 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonomi, F.: Connected vehicles, the internet of things, and fog computing. In: The Eighth ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Inter-networking (VANET), Las Vegas, USA, pp. 13–15 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonomi, F., Milito, R., Zhu, J., Addepalli, S.: Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the First Edition of the MCC Workshop on Mobile Cloud Computing, pp. 13–16. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CISCO: Fog computing and the internet of things: Extend the cloud to where the things are (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IHS Markit: The internet of things: a movement, not a market (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, Y., Kim, D., Son, J., Wang, W., Noh, Y.: A new fog-cloud storage framework with transparency and auditability. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirch, D.G., Petelle, K.: Addressing the physician shortage: The peril of ignoring demography. Jama 317(19), 1947–1948 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kraemer, F.A., Braten, A.E., Tamkittikhun, N., Palma, D.: Fog computing in healthcare-a review and discussion. IEEE Access 5, 9206–9222 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kudo, T.: Fog computing with distributed database. In: 2018 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp. 623–630. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu, R., Heung, K., Lashkari, A.H., Ghorbani, A.A.: A lightweight privacy-preserving data aggregation scheme for fog computing-enhanced iot. IEEE Access 5, 3302–3312 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madsen, H., Burtschy, B., Albeanu, G., Popentiu-Vladicescu, F.: Reliability in the utility computing era: Towards reliable fog computing. In: 2013 20th International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing, pp. 43–46. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panda, B., Haque, K.A.: Extended data dependency approach: a robust way of rebuilding database. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 446–452. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stojmenovic, I., Wen, S.: The fog computing paradigm: Scenarios and security issues. In: 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, B., et al.: The cloud is not enough: Saving IoT from the cloud. In: 7th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (HotCloud 2015) (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zuo, Y., Panda, B.: Distributed database damage assessment paradigm. Inf. Manag. Comput. Sec. 14(2), 116–139 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations