Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Model-Based Security Assessment on the Design of a Patient-Centric Data Sharing Platform

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
From Data to Models and Back (DataMod 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13268))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 256 Accesses

Abstract

The architectural design of a healthcare data sharing system must cope with security requirements especially when the system integrates different data sources and patient-centric features. The design choices come with different risks, where vulnerabilities and threats highly depend on how the system components interact and depend on each other to operate as well as how it handles the external connections. This paper focuses on security aspects arising early in the design phase of a patient-centric system. The system presents a blend of emergent technologies such as novel authentication methods, blockchain for access control, and a data lake for patient metadata storage and retrieval based on access rules. We exploit a model-based approach to tackle security assessment using attack-defense trees (ADtrees) formalism and other support diagrams altogether as a way to model and analyse potential attack paths to the system and its countermeasures. The modelling approach helps creating a framework to support the attack vectors analysis and the proposal of appropriate defense mechanisms within the system architecture.

The research in this paper was supported by the EU H2020 project SERUMS: Securing Medical Data in Smart Patient-Centric Healthcare Systems (grant code 826278).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more information on Serums project please refer to https://www.serums-h2020.org.

References

  1. Banton, M., Bowles, J., Silvina, A., Webber, T.: Conflict-free access rules for sharing smart patient health records. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Rules and Reasoning (RuleML+RR 2021). LNCS, vol. 12851, pp. 1–15. Springer (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91167-6

  2. Banton, M., Bowles, J., Silvina, A., Webber, T.: On the benefits and security risks of a user-centric data sharing platform for healthcare provision. In: UMAP 2021 Adjunct: Publication of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 351–356 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3450614.3464473

  3. BBC, O.: Cyber attack ’most significant on Irish state’ (2021). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57111615. Accessed 16 Feb 2022

  4. Belk, M., Fidas, C., Pitsillides, A.: FlexPass: symbiosis of seamless user authentication schemes in IoT. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2019). http://orcid.org/10.1145/3290607.3312951

  5. Bowles, J., Mendoza-Santana, J., Vermeulen, A.F., Webber, T., Blackledge, E.: Integrating healthcare data for enhanced citizen-centred care and analytics. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 275, 17–21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI200686

  6. Bowles, J., Mendoza-Santana, J., Webber, T.: Interacting with next-generation smart patient-centric healthcare systems. In: UMAP 2020 Adjunct: Adjunct Publication of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 192–193, July 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386392.3399561

  7. Bowles, J., Webber, T., Blackledge, E., Vermeulen, A.: A blockchain-based healthcare platform for secure personalised data sharing. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. Public Health Informat. 281, 208–212 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI210150

  8. Constantinides, A., Belk, M., Fidas, C., Pitsillides, A.: Design and development of the Serums patient-centric user authentication system. In: UMAP 2020 Adjunct: Adjunct Publication of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 201–203, July 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386392.3399564

  9. Fraile, M., Ford, M., Gadyatskaya, O., Kumar, R., Stoelinga, M., Trujillo-Rasua, R.: Using attack-defense trees to analyze threats and countermeasures in an ATM: a case study. In: IFIP Working Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling, pp. 326–334. Springer (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48393-1

  10. Given-Wilson, T., Legay, A.: Formalising fault injection and countermeasures. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security. ARES 2020. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3407023.3407049

  11. Helmer, G., Wong, J., Slagell, M., Honavar, V., Miller, L., Lutz, R.: A software fault tree approach to requirements analysis of an intrusion detection system. Requirements Eng. 7(4), 207–220 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s007660200016

  12. Hermanns, H., Krämer, J., Krčál, J., Stoelinga, M.: The value of attack-defence diagrams. In: International Conference on Principles of Security and Trust, pp. 163–185. Springer (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49635-0

  13. Janjic, V., et al.: The serums tool-chain: ensuring security and privacy of medical data in smart patient-centric healthcare systems. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, pp. 2726–2735. IEEE, Los Angeles, CA, USA, December 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9005600

  14. Kammüller, F.: Combining secure system design with risk assessment for IoT healthcare systems. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), pp. 961–966. IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2019.8730776

  15. Kordy, B., Kordy, P., Mauw, S., Schweitzer, P.: ADTool: security analysis with attack-defense trees. In: International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems (QEST), pp. 173–176. Springer (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40196-1

  16. Kordy, B., Mauw, S., Radomirović, S., Schweitzer, P.: Foundations of attack-defense trees. In: Degano, P., Etalle, S., Guttman, J. (eds.) Formal Aspects of Security and Trust. FAST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6561, pp. 80–95. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19751-2

  17. Kordy, B., Mauw, S., Schweitzer, P.: Quantitative questions on attack-defense trees. In: International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology, pp. 49–64. Springer (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37682-5

  18. Larrucea, X., Moffie, M., Asaf, S., Santamaria, I.: Towards a GDPR compliant way to secure European cross border healthcare industry 4.0. Comput. Stand. Interf. 69, 103408 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2019.103408

  19. Löhner, B.: Attack-defense-trees and other security modeling tools. In: Niedermayer, H. (ed.) Network Architectures and Services, Seminar Future Internet, pp. 97–103 (2018). https://doi.org/10.2313/NET-2018-11-1

  20. Mai, P.X., Goknil, A., Shar, L.K., Pastore, F., Briand, L.C., Shaame, S.: Modeling security and privacy requirements: a use case-driven approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 100, 165–182 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.04.007

  21. McKeon, J.: KY Hospital Systems Still Down 1 Week After Cybersecurity Incident, Health IT Security, xtelligent Healthcare Media (2022). https://www.healthitsecurity.com/news/ky-hospital-systems-still-down-1-week-after-cybersecurity-incident. Accessed 16 Feb 2022

  22. Meingast, M., Roosta, T., Sastry, S.: Security and privacy issues with health care information technology. In: 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 5453–5458. IEEE (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2006.260060

  23. MITRE Corporation: Common vulnerability and exposures, https://cve.mitre.org/. Accessed 16 Feb 2022

  24. MITRE Corporation: MITRE ATT &CK, https://www.attack.mitre.org/. Accessed 16 Feb 2022

  25. Muthuppalaniappan, M., Stevenson, K.: Healthcare cyber-attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic: an urgent threat to global health. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 33(1), mzaa117 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa117

  26. Nagaraju, V., Fiondella, L., Wandji, T.: A survey of fault and attack tree modeling and analysis for cyber risk management. In: 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/THS.2017.7943455

  27. Nicol, D., Sanders, W., Trivedi, K.: Model-based evaluation: from dependability to security. IEEE Trans. Depend. Secure Comput. 1(1), 48–65 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2004.11

  28. NIST Information Technology Laboratory: National vulnerability database (nvd), https://www.nvd.nist.gov/vuln. Accessed 16 Feb 2022

  29. Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G.: Experimental comparison of attack trees and misuse cases for security threat identification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(5), 916–932 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.05.013

  30. Piètre-Cambacédès, L., Bouissou, M.: Beyond attack trees: dynamic security modeling with Boolean logic driven Markov processes (BDMP). In: 2010 European Dependable Computing Conference, pp. 199–208. IEEE (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDCC.2010.32

  31. Priya, R., Sivasankaran, S., Ravisasthiri, P., Sivachandiran, S.: A survey on security attacks in electronic healthcare systems. In: 2017 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP), pp. 691–694. IEEE (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSP.2017.8286448

  32. Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, The (2nd Edition). Pearson Higher Education (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schneier, B.: Attack trees. Dr Dobb’s J.-Softw. Tools. Profess. Programm. 24(12), 21–31 (1999). https://www.cse.sc.edu/ zeng1/csce790-f21/papers/attacktrees.pdf

  34. Sindre, G.: Mal-activity diagrams for capturing attacks on business processes. In: Sawyer, P., Paech, B., Heymans, P. (eds.) Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 355–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73031-6

  35. Souppaya, M., Scarfone, K.: Guide to data-centric system threat modeling. Technical report. Draft NIST Special Publication 800–154, National Institute of Standards and Technology (2016). https://www.csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-154/draft

  36. Ullah, F., Edwards, M., Ramdhany, R., Chitchyan, R., Babar, M.A., Rashid, A.: Data exfiltration: a review of external attack vectors and countermeasures. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 101, 18–54 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2017.10.016

  37. Webber, T., Santana, J.M., Vermeulen, A.F., Bowles, J.K.F.: Designing a patient-centric system for secure exchanges of medical data. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2020. LNCS, vol. 12254, pp. 598–614. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58817-5_44

  38. Wideł, W., Audinot, M., Fila, B., Pinchinat, S.: Beyond 2014: formal methods for attack tree-based security modeling. ACM Comput. Surv. 52(4), 1–36 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3331524

  39. Wongvises, C., Khurat, A., Fall, D., Kashihara, S.: Fault tree analysis-based risk quantification of smart homes. In: 2017 2nd International Conference on Information Technology (INCIT), pp. 1–6 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/INCIT.2017.8257865

  40. Xu, J., Venkatasubramanian, K.K., Sfyrla, V.: A methodology for systematic attack trees generation for interoperable medical devices. In: 2016 Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSCON.2016.7490632

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9SX, UK

    Matthew Banton, Thais Webber, Agastya Silvina & Juliana Bowles

Authors
  1. Matthew Banton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thais Webber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Agastya Silvina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juliana Bowles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliana Bowles .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK

    Juliana Bowles

  2. ISTI-CNR, Pisa, Italy

    Giovanna Broccia

  3. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Roberto Pellungrini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Banton, M., Webber, T., Silvina, A., Bowles, J. (2022). Model-Based Security Assessment on the Design of a Patient-Centric Data Sharing Platform. In: Bowles, J., Broccia, G., Pellungrini, R. (eds) From Data to Models and Back. DataMod 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13268. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16011-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16011-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-16010-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-16011-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation