Enhancing Privacy Measures in Healthcare within Cyber-Physical Systems through Cryptographic Solutions

Venkata Naga Rani Bandaru; M Sumalatha; Shaik Mohammad Rafee; Kantheti Prasadraju; M Sri Lakshmi

doi:10.4108/eetsis.5732

Authors

Venkata Naga Rani Bandaru SRM Institute of Science and Technology
M Sumalatha Shri Vishnu Engineering College of Engineering
Shaik Mohammad Rafee Sasi Institute of Technology and Engineering
Kantheti Prasadraju SRKR Engineering College
M Sri Lakshmi Vishnu Institute of Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4108/eetsis.5732

Keywords:

Interoperability, Standardization, Cyber Threat Intelligence, Cybersecurity Framework, Integration, Healthcare Privacy, Cryptographic Solutions

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The foundation of cybersecurity is privacy, standardization, and interoperability—all of which are essential for compatibility, system integration, and the protection of user data. In order to better understand the complex interrelationships among privacy, standards, and interoperability in cybersecurity, this article explains their definitions, significance, difficulties, and advantages.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between privacy, standards, and interoperability in cybersecurity, with a focus on how these factors might improve cybersecurity policy and protect user privacy.

METHODS: This paper thoroughly examines privacy, standards, and interoperability in cybersecurity using methods from social network analysis. It combines current concepts and literature to reveal the complex processes at work.

RESULTS: The results highlight how important interoperability and standardization are to bolstering cybersecurity defences and preserving user privacy. Effective communication and cooperation across a variety of technologies are facilitated by adherence to standards and compatible systems.

CONCLUSION: Strong cybersecurity plans must prioritize interoperability and standardization. These steps strengthen resilience and promote coordinated incident response, which is especially important for industries like healthcare that depend on defined procedures to maintain operational security.

References

Rantos, K., Spyros, A., Papanikolaou, A., Kritsas, A., Ilioudis, C., & Katos, V. (2020). Interoperability Challenges in the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Ecosystem. Computers, 9(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers9010018

Ainslie, S., Thompson, D., Maynard, S., & Ahmad, A. (2023). Cyber-threat intelligence for security decision-making: A review and research agenda for practice. Computers & Security, 132, 103352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103352

Bandaru, R., & Visalakshi, P. (2023). BDBC - Block-Chain Data Transmission Using Blowfish Security with Optimization in Cloud Network. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, 12(5s), 370–378. Retrieved from https://ijisae.org/index.php/IJISAE/article/view/3899

Barnum, S. (2012). Standardizing cyber threat intelligence information with the structured threat information expression (stix). In A. A. Editor (Ed.), Proceedings of the Title of the Conference (p. 1-22). Publisher's name.

Toch, E., Bettini, C., Shmueli, E., Radaelli, L., Lanzi, A., Riboni, D., & Lepri, B. (2018). The privacy implications of cyber security systems: A technological survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(2), 1-27.

Chenine, M., et al. (2014). A framework for wide-area monitoring and control systems interoperability and cybersecurity analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 29(2), 633-641.

Reis, M. J. C. S., Gupta, N., & Pareek, P. (2023). Cognitive Computing and Cyber Physical Systems (Vol. 1, p. 268).

Barnum, S. (2012). Standardizing cyber threat intelligence information with the structured threat information expression (stix). Mitre Corporation, 11, 1-22.

Bonfanti, M. E. (2018). Cyber Intelligence: In pursuit of a better understanding for an emerging practice. Cyber, Intelligence, and Security, 2(1), 105-121.

Brown, S., Gommers, J., & Serrano, O. (2015). From cyber security information sharing to threat management. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on information sharing and collaborative security.

Meseke, D. W. (1975). Safeguard Data‐Processing System: The Data‐Processing System Performance Requirements in Retrospect. Bell System Technical Journal, 54(10), S29-S37.

Bandaru, V.N.R., & Visalakshi, P. (2022). Block chain enabled auditing with optimal multi‐key homomorphic encryption technique for public cloud computing environment. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 34(22), e7128. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.7128

Ali, A., et al. (2023). Securing secrets in cyber-physical systems: A cutting-edge privacy approach with consortium blockchain. Sensors, 23(16), 7162.

Konstantinou, C., Maniatakos, M., Saqib, F., Hu, S., Plusquellic, J., & Jin, Y. (2015). Cyber-physical systems: A security perspective. In 2015 20th IEEE European Test Symposium (ETS) (p. 1-8). IEEE.

Ara, A. (2019). Privacy preservation in cloud-based cyber physical systems. Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, 16(10), 4320-4327.

Zhang, X., Zhao, J., Mu, L., Tang, Y., & Xu, C. (2019). Identity-based proxy-oriented outsourcing with public auditing in cloud-based medical cyber–physical systems. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 56, 18-28.

Morampudi, M.K., Sandhya, M., & Dileep, M. (2023). Privacy-preserving bimodal authentication system using Fan-Vercauteren scheme. Optik, 274, Article number 170515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2023.170515

Min, Z., Yang, G., Sangaiah, A. K., Bai, S., & Liu, G. (2019). A privacy protection-oriented parallel fully homomorphic encryption algorithm in cyber physical systems. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2019(1), 1-14.

Sain, M., Normurodov, O., Hong, C., & Hui, K. L. (2021). A survey on the security in cyber physical system with multi-factor authentication. In 2021 23rd International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT) (p. 1-8). IEEE.