| Literature DB >> 33776546 |
Arindam Sarkar1, Moumita Sarkar2.
Abstract
In the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth plays a significant role in the e-healthcare. E-health security risks have also risen significantly with the rise in the use of telehealth. This paper addresses one of e-health's key concerns, namely security. Secret sharing is a cryptographic method to ensure reliable and secure access to information. To eliminate the constraint that in the existing secret sharing schemes, this paper presents Tree Parity Machine (TPM) guided patients' privileged based secure sharing. This is a new secret sharing technique that generates the shares using a simple mask based operation. This work considers addressing the challenges presents in the original secret sharing scheme. This proposed technique enhances the security of the existing scheme. This research introduces a concept of privileged share in which among k number of shares one share should come from a specific recipient (patient) to whom a special privilege is given to recreate the original information. In the absence of this privileged share, the original information cannot be reconstructed. This technique also offers TPM based exchange of secret shares to prevent Man-In-The-Middle-Attack (MITM). Here, two neural networks receive common inputs and exchange their outputs. In some steps, it leads to full synchronization by setting the discrete weights according to the specific rule of learning. This synchronized weight is used as a common secret session key for transmitting the secret shares. The proposed method has been found to produce attractive results that show that the scheme achieves a great degree of protection, reliability, and efficiency and also comparable to the existing secret sharing scheme.Entities:
Keywords: Artificial Neural Networks (ANN); COVID-19; Secret share; Security; Telehealth
Year: 2021 PMID: 33776546 PMCID: PMC7981392 DOI: 10.1007/s11042-021-10705-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Multimed Tools Appl ISSN: 1380-7501 Impact factor: 2.757
Fig. 1Histogram of frequency distribution spectrum of input source stream characters
Fig. 2Histogram of the frequency distribution continuum of encoded stream characters using the proposed technique
Fig. 3The original signal’s floating frequency
Fig. 4Using the proposed method, the floating frequency of the encrypted signal
Fig. 5Autocorrelation of the original signal
Fig. 6Autocorrelation of the encrypted signal using proposed technique
Quality metrices estimation
| Clinical signals | MSE | PSNR (dB) | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|
| ECG [ | 10925.75 | 7.943 | 0.0489 |
| EEG [ | 10286.19 | 8.318 | − 0.0314 |
| BP [ | 11517.73 | 8.187 | 0.0759 |
PRD in received clinical signal with noise %
| Signal | PRD (0% Noise) | PRD (5% Noise) | PRD (10% Noise) | PRD (15% Noise) | PRD (100% Noise) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BP [ | 2.89 × 10− 16 | 89.75 | 185.05 | 319.72 | 847.16 |
| ECG [ | 3.10 × 10− 14 | 19913.42 | 24573.95 | 48567.84 | 112186.35 |
| EEG [ | 1.48 × 10− 15 | 385.31 | 632.08 | 910.75 | 3196.89 |
NIST statistical test
| NIST test | p_Value | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 0.568742 | Success |
| Frequency within a Block | 0.587315 | Success |
| Runs | 0.519634 | Success |
| Longest Run of Ones in a Block | 0.089347 | Success |
| Binary Matrix Rank | 0.681438 | Success |
| Discrete Fourier Transform | 0.513691 | Success |
| Non-overlapping Template Matching | 0.460869 | Success |
| Overlapping (Periodic) Template Matching | 0.222473 | Success |
| Maurer’s “Universal Statistical” | 0.789345 | Success |
| Linear Complexity | 0.669803 | Success |
| Serial | 0.545770 | Success |
| Approximate Entropy | 0.292437 | Success |
| Cummulative Sums | 0.698130 | Success |
| Random Excursions | 0.354801 | Success |
| Random Excursions Variants | 0.237895 | Success |
Comparisons of encryption / decryption time of the proposed technique with existing secret sharing scheme, and benchmark TDES encryption techniques
| Source file size (in bytes) | Proposed technique (in ms) | Secret sharing [ | TDES [ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enc. | Dec. | Enc. | Dec. | Enc. | Dec. | |
| 1,925,185 | 123 | 129 | 197 | 219 | 393 | 501 |
| 2,498,560 | 173 | 178 | 242 | 297 | 532 | 518 |
| 3,790,336 | 221 | 227 | 298 | 332 | 897 | 923 |
| 4,883,456 | 286 | 292 | 405 | 467 | 964 | 1051 |
| 5,456,704 | 319 | 326 | 487 | 517 | 1172 | 1168 |
Comparison of the technique proposed with recent techniques noted in the literature
| Sl. No. | Comparative Parameters | Pro-posed technique | Ref [ | Ref [ | Ref [ | Ref [ | Ref [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ECG Clinical Signal | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| 2 | EEG Clinical Signal | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 3 | BP Clinical Signal | No | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 4 | UCD Clinical Signal | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| 5 | Signal Database | Phy-sio Bank ATM | Phy-sio Bank ATM | MIT-BIH | UCI KDD | NTOU | Bonn University |
| 6 | Telehealth System | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| 7 | Live Sensing Signals | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 8 | Data Encryption | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 9 | Data Compression | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| 10 | Secret Key Space Analysis | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 11 | Histogram | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 12 | Correlation | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| 13 | Autocorrelation | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
| 14 | Plain Signal Sensitivity | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
| 15 | Secret Key Sensitivity | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 16 | Entropy Analysis | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 17 | Floating Frequency | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 18 | Chosen plain text attack | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 19 | Differential attacks | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| 20 | Mean square error MSE | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
| 21 | Pick signal to noise ration PSNR | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 22 | Signal to noise ration SNR | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| 23 | Structural similarity index SSIM | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 24 | Power spectral density | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| 25 | Encryption Time Analysis | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
| 26 | Pseudo-randomness Analysis | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| 27 | AVAL Effect | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| 28 | Strict Avalanche Effect | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| 29 | Bit Independence Test | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| 30 | Comparative Study | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
Average values of avalanche, strict avalanche and bit independence comparisons
| Technique | Avg. Value of Avalanche | Avg. Value of Strict Avalanche | Avg. Value of Bit Independence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed | 0.9759632 | 0.9729145 | 0.7591037 |
| AES [ | 0.9999469 | 0.9996540 | 0.7211989 |
| TDES [ | 0.9999142 | 0.9996324 | 0.7147735 |