Fog-Assisted Data Security and Privacy in Healthcare

  • Shweta KaushikEmail author
  • Amit Sinha
Part of the Signals and Communication Technology book series (SCT)


With the advancement in the aging of world’s population and increments of people having chronic diseases, resulted in high demand for expensive medical treatment and care. In this view, the usage of latest technology solutions has been utilized at wide stage in order to improve the health of patient. One of the most prominent solution in this regard is the usage of cloud computing technology for the storage and process of patient health record. The medical data such as CT scan, MRI, X-rays, heart or kidney transplantation videos, and other health information should be available in digital format and such type of huge multimedia big data needs to be kept in the cloud. But, this usage of cloud computing can introduce delay while processing the data which is not tolerable. To deal with this problem, fog computing is used, which allows the data storage and its processing near to the data source. But it also brings with itself many security challenges such as data availability, security, privacy, performance, and interoperability, which requires high consideration. This chapter concentrates on these issues, i.e., how patient data can be retrieved for monitoring while reducing the latency and securing the private data of patient. A pairing-based cryptography technique such as an elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman key agreement protocol and a decoy technique are used to access and store data more securely along with the help of some cryptographic algorithms. In this chapter, we have also exasperated to gather some of the security matters which may stand up in the healthcare sector, and also discuss existing resolutions and emergent threats.


Attack Availability Healthcare Integrity Privacy Security 


  1. 1.
    Kumari, A., Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., & Kumar, N. (2018). Fog computing for Healthcare 4.0 Environment: Opportunities and challenges. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 72, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hathaliya, J., Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., & Kumar, N. (2019). Securing electronics healthcare records in healthcare 4.0: A biometric-based approach. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 76, 398–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mistry, I., Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., & Kumar, N. (2020). Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for industrial automation: A systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 135, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., Kumar N. (Eds). (2019). Security and privacy of electronics healthcare records (pp. 1–450). IET Book Series on e-Health Technologies.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vora, J., Italiya, P., Tanwar, S., Tyagi, S., Kumar, N., Obaidat, M. S., Hsiao, K-F. (2018). Ensuring privacy and security in E-health records. International conference on computer, information and telecommunication systems (IEEE CITS-2018), Colmar, France, 11-13 July 2018, pp. 192–196.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kraemer, F. A., Braten, A. E., Tamkittikhun, N., & Palma, D. (2017). Fog computing in healthcare a review and discussion. IEEE Access, 5, 9206–9222.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ye, J., Kaylor, R., Lindsay, J., & Everhart, D. (2004). U.S. patent application no. 10/305,263.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oussous, A., Benjelloun, F. Z., Lahcen, A. A., & Belfkih, S. (2017). Big data technologies: A survey. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences.
  9. 9.
    Dastjerdi, A. V., & Buyya, R. (2016). Fog computing: Helping the internet of things realize its potential. Computer, 49(8), 112–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun, J., et al. (2011). Security and privacy for Mobile healthcare (m-health) systems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darwish, A., & Hassanien, A. E. (2011). Wearable and implantable wireless sensor network solutions for healthcare monitoring. Sensors, 11(6), 5561–5595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Altamimi, A. M. Security and privacy issues in eHealthcare systems: Towards trusted services.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stojmenovic, I., Wen, S., Huang, X., & Luan, H. (2016). An overview of fog computing and its security issues. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 28(10), 29913005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gentry, C., et al. (2009). Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. STOC, 9, 169–178.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iliashenko, F. (2017). Vercauteren, Privacy-friendly forecasting for the smart grid using homomorphic encryption and the group method of data handling. In International Conference on Cryptology in Africa (pp. 184–201). Springer.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bos, J. W., Castryck, W., Iliashenko, I., Vercauteren, F. (2017). Privacy-friendly forecasting for the smart grid using homomorphic encryption and the group method of data handling. In International Conference on Cryptology in Africa (pp. 184–201). Springer.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma, L., Teymorian, A. Y., Cheng, X. (2008). A hybrid rogue access point protection framework for commodity wi- networks. In: INFOCOM 2008. The 27th conference on computer communications. IEEE, IEEE, 2008, pp. 1220–1228.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hyde, D. A survey on the security of virtual machines. Retrieved from
  19. 19.
    Wu, J., Lei, Z., Chen, S., & Shen, W. (2017). An access control model for preventing virtual machine escape attack. Future Internet, 9(2), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tanwar, S., Vora, J., Kanriya, S., Tyagi, S., Kumar, N., Sharma, V., & You, I. (2019). Human arthritis analysis in fog computing environment using Bayesian network classifier and thread protocol. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 9(1), 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kulkarni, S., Saha, S., Hockenbury, R. (2014). Preserving privacy in sensor-fog networks. In: Internet technology and secured transactions (ICITST), 2014 9th international conference for (pp. 96–99). IEEE.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sudha, I., Kannaki, A., & Jeevidha, S. (2014). Alleviating internal data theft attacks by decoy technology in cloud. New York: IJCSMC.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dong, M. T., & Zhou, X. (2016). Fog computing: Comprehensive approach for security data theft attack using elliptic curve cryptography and decoy technology. Open Access Library J, 3(09), 1.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harnik, D., Pinkas, B., & Shulman-Peleg, A. (2010). Side channels in cloud services: Deduplication in cloud storage. IEEE Security Privacy, 8(6), 4047. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stolfo, S. J., Salem, M. B., Keromytis, A. D. (2012). Fog computing: Mitigating insider data theft attacks in the cloud. In: Security and privacy workshops (SPW), 2012 IEEE symposium on (pp. 125–128). IEEE.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petac, E., Petac, A.-O., et al. (2016). About security solutions in fog computing, Ovidius university annals. Economic Sciences Series, 16(1), 380385.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ABES Engineering CollegeGhaziabadIndia

Personalised recommendations