| Literature DB >> 35003323 |
Naif Almusallam1, Abdulatif Alabdulatif2, Fawaz Alarfaj1.
Abstract
The healthcare sector is rapidly being transformed to one that operates in new computing environments. With researchers increasingly committed to finding and expanding healthcare solutions to include the Internet of Things (IoT) and edge computing, there is a need to monitor more closely than ever the data being collected, shared, processed, and stored. The advent of cloud, IoT, and edge computing paradigms poses huge risks towards the privacy of data, especially, in the healthcare environment. However, there is a lack of comprehensive research focused on seeking efficient and effective solutions that ensure data privacy in the healthcare domain. The data being collected and processed by healthcare applications is sensitive, and its manipulation by malicious actors can have catastrophic repercussions. This paper discusses the current landscape of privacy-preservation solutions in IoT and edge healthcare applications. It describes the common techniques adopted by researchers to integrate privacy in their healthcare solutions. Furthermore, the paper discusses the limitations of these solutions in terms of their technical complexity, effectiveness, and sustainability. The paper closes with a summary and discussion of the challenges of safeguarding privacy in IoT and edge healthcare solutions which need to be resolved for future applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35003323 PMCID: PMC8739545 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6834800
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1An overview of edge computing and Internet of Things paradigms. Edge computing paradigm takes place closer to the physical IoT units (e.g., a user or the data source) which in turn plays a critical role as a midpoint to lower latency and saves bandwidth to the cloud.
Privacy-preserving solutions in IoT-based healthcare and the associated challenges.
| Privacy-preserving IoT-based healthcare solutions | References | Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| Quantum level computations SIMD-SHE | [ | Dependence on other platforms (cloud computing) |
| Complete or partial use of blockchain | [ | Need excessive computation resources |
| Data encryption schemes | [ | Low computation resources and high latency |
| Cryptography mechanisms | [ | Limited resources |
| Data pseudonymization and anonymization schemes | [ | Low bandwidth and network performance, absence of legal framework |
| Secure authentication scheme (SAB-UAS) | [ | Low latency and network performance with high cost |
Privacy-preserving solutions in edge computing-based healthcare and the associated challenges.
| Privacy-preserving edge computing based healthcare solutions | References | Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| Anonymization techniques such as differential privacy | [ | Complexity due to decentralization |
| Hardware level solution (SGX) | [ | High cost |
| Blockchain technology | [ | Complex decentralization and high overheads |
| Data hiding mechanism (PRM) | [ | Intercommunication complexity |
| Encryption schemes | [ | High cost |
| Network function virtualization (NFV) | [ | Complexity introduced by heterogeneity |
Summary of privacy preservation challenges in both IoT and edge computing-based healthcare solutions.
| Privacy preservation challenges computing | IoT | Edge |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Less computing power for executing privacy solutions. | ✓ | |
| (2) Inefficient performance for real time secure processing. | ✓ | |
| (3) Limited resources with regard to bandwidth. | ✓ | |
| (4) Lack of privacy policies. | ✓ | ✓ |
| (5) Absence of trust management layers between computing paradigms. | ✓ | ✓ |
| (6) Lack of user awareness about sharing their own data. | ✓ | ✓ |
| (7) Limited resources with regard to memory. | ✓ | ✓ |
| (8) High mobility of devices introduces the challenge to keep the privacy preservation mechanisms intelligent and dynamic. | ✓ | ✓ |
| (9) Dependence on other platforms for optimal performance. | ✓ | |
| (10) Heterogeneous nature impels for complex intercommunication between devices and among platforms. | ✓ | ✓ |
| (11) Decentralized architecture's complexity. | ✓ | |
| (12) Requirement of unconventional lightweight privacy mechanisms. | ✓ | |
| (13) Compatibility issues within devices can lead to misconfiguration and thus data exposure. | ✓ | |
| (14) High computational overheads. | ✓ | |
| (15) Possibility of hardware (device/node) compromise. | ✓ | ✓ |