the adoption electronics in mHealth for preventive and curative services, how can eSafety for the patients be ensured?
Knowledge Penetration and safety precautions always go parallel..... so need not to worry, IOT will grow in exponential and simultaneously the e-safety will also grow.... and ensure with time.
Now the current health system in developing countries need the help of technology as the patient doctor ratio is 1:7000, traffic condition is horrible, most of the patients die due to traffic..and ambulance cannot reach in time...... to keep in mind all these things.... in my view m-Health Care is a need today.
I do agree about m-Health care. Though there are many projects executed by students on clearing signal for ambulance or zero traffic for ambulance and e-patient monitoring etc, adoption of these products and reputation / leliability of those are in question..
Mam you are absolutely correct, we can analyse security or safety during the implementation of any new technology and implement the safety/security technology after the implementation of new technology.
The simple answer is that safety cannot be ensured. Any product comes only with limited warranty and IoT will be no different. There are risks in adopting any technology, new or old, and IoT will be no different.
Kasili - I have to agree with C. P. and Kirithukamani. I don't think eSafety can be ensured.
In general, the internet of things is poorly structured, carelessly implemented and almost never maintained. It is unlikely that anybody will regularly install security updates on IoT health devices which find their way into the homes of patients, and as for the myriad IoT refrigerators, toasters, kettles, light-globes, refrigerators, audio systems and baby monitors that could be sharing the same local network, most device owners will have no idea how to manage security settings, or what the connectivity implications are.
The distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on DynDNS in October was reported to be at least in part due to traffic from a Mirai botnet:
"According to security intelligence firm Flashpoint, Mirai bots were detected driving much, but not necessarily all, of the traffic in the DDoS attacks against DynDNS.
"Mirai is a piece of malware that targets Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as routers, and security cameras, DVRs, and enslaves vast numbers of these compromised devices into a botnet, which is then used to conduct DDoS attacks.
"Since the source code of Mirai Botnet has already made available to the public, anyone can wield DDoS attacks against targets."
Source:http://thehackernews.com/2016/10/iot-dyn-ddos-attack.html
I talked about this in Paris in April:
Conference Paper Risk and the Internet of Things: Damocles, Pythia, or Pandora?
Looking at this as a business opportunity. Market demand will drive security companies into this field. Tools will become available for maintaining security on IoT networks. But like any cyber technology, security companies will always be chasing the hackers. Security won't be ensured, but the risk/benefit equation will advance IoT devices in every industry where there is a human or financial benefit.
Sorry to disagree with you, Chuck, but there really is no 'market' for security tools in healthcare IoT. On the whole these are low-capability, low-cost devices, and no end-user (patient) who has already bought an IoT enabled toaster or kettle will be interested in spending more money to upgrade those devices to improve the security of their IoT connected blood pressure monitor. And in any case, it's not likely that they will have any idea how to organise the security upgrade.
The IoT space is an uncoordinated, multi-'standard' mess, and is likely to stay that way.
Well my two cents would be to ensure a lot more pressure is applied to the IoT vendors. Time and time again over the past several years as Chris has eluded to, there are examples of non-adherence to the latest in encryption standards (if any) as well as failure to use basic cyber hygiene by these companies who are producing these products. Leaving the default username and password accessible past setup comes to mind as a common theme, also ensuring that all ports that the IoT could communicate over are clearly spelled out so that the buyer knows exactly what they are getting and can take the necessary steps to safeguard the IoT transmittal of information. Segmenting these devices on their own network would also go a long way. For now, it is very much Caveat emptor.
Colleagues, IoT has wide and rapidly growing applications that enhance further interconnectivity and user dependence. The user dependency and IoT system inherent weaknesses are vulnerabilities. The IoT and user vulnerabilities are often targeted and exploited by cyber-criminals for financial gain, ransomware, theft personal identification information, among other online crimes. I appreciate the knowledge and awareness that this question continues to generate.
- Badges
- Science topic