<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Threat Modeling of Electronic Health Systems and Mitigating Countermeasures</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>John K. Alhassan</string-name>
          <email>jkalhassan@futminna.edu.ng</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Emmanuel Abba</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>O. M. Olaniyi</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Victor O. Waziri</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Computer Engineering, Federal University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Minna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NG">Nigeria</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Department of Cyber Security Science, Federal University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Minna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NG">Nigeria</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Federal University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Minna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="NG">Nigeria</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2016</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>82</fpage>
      <lpage>89</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>-Electronic health systems (EHS) serve as information management systems for health records of patients which are various data generated from interactions between patients and medical personnel. The security of electronic health system is vital due to the growing acceptance of their use. There is a need to assure users that the data generated and stored on the EHS are protected from adversaries. In the case where the data is already compromised, it is imperative to locate the source of the threat as quickly as possible and implement appropriate countermeasures against such vulnerabilities starting from the highest vulnerable point to lower vulnerabilities. In this study, a threat security model for the EHS was proposed from identified threats which were then discussed. Based on these threats, possible counter measures for authentication and authorization control were highlighted. The threat model was developed through a procedure that guarantees the integrity, availability and confidentiality of health records. The procedure involves using the STRIDE threat modelling tool to identify potential threats which were then ranked with respect to the amount of risk they pose to the system based on scores calculated using DREAD; a threat-risk rating model. The result is a collection of identified and rated threat in order of decreasing risk to an EHS. Careful consideration of the resulting threat rating model by information system security professional will lead to the development of secure systems and provide a guide to the order in which vulnerabilities should be patched in compromised existing systems.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>-threat modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>electronic health countermeasures</kwd>
        <kwd>attacks</kwd>
        <kwd>authentication</kwd>
        <kwd>authorization</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>INTRODUCTION
e-Health systems (EHS) were introduced to facilitate
health care delivery and health records management as a
result of inadequate facilities to cater for the teeming
population of people in need of qualitative health care
services. e-Health systems have improved workflow for
healthcare providers and increase patients access to health
care by providing a user friendly and reliable means by
which patients can interact with heath care service providers
[1]</p>
      <p>
        The application of information technology in the
provision and management of health administration is
constantly advancing as the quality of patient care in recent
times rely upon timely collection and processing of patients
clinical information [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">2</xref>
        ]. Sharing of patient healthcare
information is happening more rapidly and the process is
getting reliable with advancement in technology. These has
led e-health care to become critical for achieving better
operation of adequate health care services with lower
operation costs and efficient service delivery [3].
      </p>
      <p>However, such sharing of healthcare information requires
to be done securely in a manner that guarantees privacy as
required by law. It is obvious that health management
systems process and store very delicate data about a patient’s
health status and should have an appropriate privacy
framework because the revelation of health records may
result in stern social effect on patients. Exposing patient’s
confidential health data outside the e-health system,
accidentally or deliberately, must be prevented by healthcare
professionals or information technology service providers
who will face stern legal punishments for violating privacy
laws [4].</p>
      <p>The threats faced by EHS may lead to the disclosure of
private health data and violation of privacy laws. These
threats may be classified as authentication, accounting and
authorization threats as generally known to other
management information systems such as banking and
manufacturing. Securing this areas of E-Health involves
information security and privacy as well as physical safety
[5].</p>
      <p>Continuous monitoring of e-health systems provides a
steady stream of data that can be used to identify and correct
security deficiencies as the system is developed, tested and
used to get ahead of the problem posed to e-health, this can
be done to determine threat and attacker behavior in order to
anticipate when and how it may happen and preparation of
adequate counter measures as may be required to prevent
such occurrences. This is done in a process referred to as
threat modelling [6]; a systematic process of identifying and
rating threats [7]. The key to establishing an effective threat
model for any information system is prior determination of
where the vulnerabilities exist and more security should be
implemented to ensure the system is secure [8]. These
vulnerable parts of the system are variables that change as
new factors that may pose threats evolve and get detected.</p>
      <p>The procedure for threat modeling [9] optimizes network
security by recognizing targets and vulnerable points in the
system and then implementing a plan for countermeasures to
mitigate the results of exploiting these threats to the system.
In the case of an e-health system, a threat is any action or
event that may lead to malfunction of the system and
services it provides or to patient health record data disclosure
or incidental such as the failure of a patient’s medical device,
and that can compromise the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of the system.</p>
      <p>
        While formulating the security requirements for an EHS,
the threats are analyzed based on how critical they are and
likelihood that they may occur, and a resolution to either
mitigate the threat or accept the associated risk is made
because definitions of the functionalities and requirements
for EHS are constantly evolving as knowledge and
experience with these tools increase [4]. Modelling threats
and security requirements provide the foundations upon
which security controls for the EHS is designed and
implemented [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">10</xref>
        ]. Identifying threats helps develop realistic
and meaningful security requirements which will be used to
come up with the threat model. This is particularly essential
because if the security requirements are faulty, the definition
of security for that EHS is faulty, the threat model is faulty
and thus the EHS cannot be secure. After the threats are
Identified, they are rated according to the degree of risk that
they pose to the system. The vulnerabilities that are likely to
cause a much larger damage are rated as high and those that
are low risk are rated as such.
      </p>
      <p>The requirement definition for the development of Secure
EHS follows from the premise that system should be
convenient, usable and most importantly trustworthy, and
secure patient private information. Proper identification and
rating of threats on these requirements define the
functionality and service the system will provide and thus
appropriate selection of countermeasures that reduce the
ability of attackers to misuse the system. In that respect,
threat modeling looks at the system from the perspective of
an adversary to help designers anticipate various attack goals
and determine answers to questions about what the system is
designed to protect, and from whom. Rating the threats
ensures that for already existing systems, when the need
arises to patch vulnerabilities in the system, security
professionals will know where to start from. This study
builds on the identification of threats done using STRIDE
threat model (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation,
Information disclosure, Denial of service, and Elevation of
privilege) to identify potential threats which were then rated
based on the security risk posed using a DREAD (Damage
potential, Reproducibility, Exploitability, affected users, and
Discoverability) risk rating model.</p>
      <p>The remaining section of the paper is organized into five
sections: Section II presents the review of related works; the
methodology for modelling e-health system is presented in
section III; results are discussed in IV, Section V proposed
possible countermeasures to identified threats in while
Section VI concludes the paper and open our next direction
in future research endeavor.</p>
      <p>II.</p>
      <p>REVIEW OF RELATED WORKS
The application of information technology for providing
health care and medical data privacy has a number of related
works in literature.</p>
      <p>
        [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">11</xref>
        ] modeled threat evaluation for dynamic targets
using Bayesian network approach. A range of various
parameters were considered to build the Bayesian model.
They proposed that a target to a defended asset is clearly
related to both the intent parameters and capability. The
authors stated that the range of a target's weapon systems, the
gap between the target and the assets being defended are
interrelated, since a target is more threatening to a defended
asset if the defended asset is within the range of its weapon
systems, than if it is outside it. The threat evaluation system
they implemented can be applied to an air defense scenario
and can enable in radar, aircraft, etc. The authors however
focused only on outsider threats and threats posed by
weapons and payed no attention to threats that may arise as a
result of insider action such as sabotage or spies and
espionage.
      </p>
      <p>
        [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">12</xref>
        ] presented a research on an automated system for
managing patient information and its administration with a
view to eliminate the problem of inappropriate data
archiving, inaccurate reports, time wastage in storing,
processing and retrieving information encountered by the
traditional hospital system in order to improve the overall
efficiency of the organization. The method used to
implement the system was system requirement analysis,
system design and development using appropriate
programming language. However, no threat model was used
to plan security implementations for the system and they
failed to address threats that may affect the system developed
or indicate in any way that it was a concern that needs to be
addressed.
      </p>
      <p>
        In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">13</xref>
        ] the authors proposed a quantitative methodology
to rank the threats in a cloud environment using Microsoft's
STRIDE-DREAD model to assess existing threats in cloud
environment and measure the consequence of these threats.
The threats they identified were ranked based on the nature
of its severity and also giving a high priority to clients'
requirements on the perspective of security. They stated that
their methodology would serve as a tool for guiding security
experts and software developers to continue with securing
process especially for a private or a hybrid cloud. After
ranking the threats, the authors provided a link to a
wellknown security pattern classification. They however failed to
provide any over-weighting for client's requirement, as these
requirements would have been an implemented security
protocol in the system.
      </p>
      <p>
        A STRIDE-based Security Architecture for
SoftwareDefined Networking was presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">14</xref>
        ]. The study
revealed a wide range of SDN-specific threats, for which no
countermeasure has been prescribed yet. Some of the threats
discovered are inherently tied to principles of SDN design
which include controllers becoming potential central attack
targets; the authors suggested key factors and constraints of a
secure SDN architecture.
      </p>
      <p>By applying the STRIDE threat model, they came up
with a generic SDN concepts as a basis for the design of a
secure SDN architecture.</p>
      <p>[4] presented the development and qualitative evaluation
of a functional and secure tele-clinical diagnostic system for
effective delivery of medical services to patient in a
geographically dispersed academic environment. Their
results showed that the combination of concepts of Software
engineering, Telemedicine, and Information Security in this
study can help healthcare professionals improve trust,
efficiency, enhanced work productivity and improved
operational speed of medical health delivery significantly by
ensuring the safety of patient data and service reliability in
tele-consultation. However, the password based
authentication used for user authentication is not sufficient
enough to guarantee access control of the system. The delay
experienced during tele-consultation can be exploited by
eavesdroppers whose exploit will be detected too late as a
result.</p>
      <p>
        Data Security and Threat Modeling for Smart City
Infrastructure was investigated by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">15</xref>
        ]. Their approach
involves taking hundreds of features from the architecture of
systems and network topology, operating systems, database
schemas, security policies, encryption techniques, business
operations, and corporate data into consideration by looking
at smart city architecture, firewalls and malware protection
programs. The vulnerability assessment stage is a repeated
process with many threat analysis life cycles. The algorithm
was used to compute threat factor and normalizes it based on
the initial data collected. A lower threat factor means the
smart city systems would be hacked at lower risk. Their
approach also used defense in depth and strategies for threat
mitigations, and provides recommendations.
      </p>
      <p>
        Fuzzy Logic Approach for Threat Prioritization in Agile
Security Framework using DREAD Model was studied by
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">16</xref>
        ]. They proposed a novel fuzzy approach using DREAD
model for computing the level of risk that assures a more
efficient evaluation of imprecise concepts. Thus providing
the ability to include subjectivity and uncertainty in the
course of ranking risk. They presented a case study
emphasize and compare the proposed approach with the
existing method one using Matlab.
      </p>
      <p>
        [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">17</xref>
        ] used a STRIDE threat model to identify all possible
threats to telehealth systems. System assets, threat agents,
adverse actions, threats and their effects alongside their
various countermeasures. These threats were examined and a
list of possible mitigation techniques were presented as
countermeasures for insider threats. A threat model using
Microsoft threat modeling tool 2014 was established to
enhance the system security in terms of protecting healthcare
information from security threats which include patient data
disclosure and/or unauthorized access or modification by
attackers. In rating the threats discovered in the
investigations, the authors did not use any systematic
computations or methodology in rating the threats as high,
medium or low risk to the systems. This can be achieved
using a DREAD risk-assessment model for computer
security threats which provides a mnemonic for risk rating
security threats using five categories to obtain a hybrid threat
model whose threats are properly rated.
      </p>
      <p>III.</p>
      <p>METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING THREAT IN</p>
      <p>ELECTRONIC HEALTH SYSTEMS</p>
      <p>The modeling of threats in computer systems software
has been widely used and involves a number of techniques.
The essential process involved has been described in [6] and
discussed in [3]. To model threats for the eHealth system,
three essential steps are followed as described below:
 Identify Assets of the EHS
 Identify Access points
 Identify threats
 Rate the identified threats</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>A. Identifying Assets</title>
      <p>An asset is any valuable component of a system that may
be owned by the system and holds an interest for attackers.
Attackers here refer to persons or processes that constitute a
threat to the asset from within or outside the system or
environment where it is being used. Recognizing assets is the
most important step in threat modeling. This is because
assets are primary targets of threat. For an EHS, the assets
include the system itself, the various hardware and software
components that allow it to function and the various actors
that interact with the system. Figure one shows the actors
(assets) that interact with the EHS. Assets are not limited to
just the actors, the server, computer systems, mobile devices,
network, cabling, power source, and power outlets are all
assets of the EHS and should be accorded the same level of
consideration when identifying assets in this phase.</p>
      <p>Figure 1 shows various actors who interact with the EHS
to generate different types of data that is peculiar to their
departments in a healthcare facility and a patient which are
store in the database. The nurses on the front desk may create
a patient profile for a patient on his first visit to the health
care facility with his biodata and a unit identification is
generated for the patient, a doctor records his diagnosis of
the patient in the database along with recommendations as
regards test to be conducted on the patient at the lab. The lab
technician accesses the data and conducts the test and
records findings into the database. The doctor accesses this
data and makes prescriptions and recommendations to admit
the patient or not. The pharmacist fills the prescription and
the patient leaves the health care facility. If the system is
accessible by the patient over the internet, he/she may login
to book appointments for another visit.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>B. Identifying Access points</title>
      <p>Access points are the various interfaces threat posing
attackers may use to interface with the system to obtain
unauthorized privileges to assets. Hardware ports, login
screens and user interfaces, open sockets, RPC interfaces and
configuration files are examples of access points on systems.
Trust boundaries determination is related to access points in
the system. Upon recognizing an access points, it is essential
to define trust boundaries for the access point in the system.
A trust boundary refers to a boundary over which different
levels of trust exist. Trust levels stipulate the amount of trust
necessary to access a given part of the system. For instance,
a network may form a trust boundary, as anyone may gain
access to the internet through the network, but not everyone
on the internet should have access to the enterprise network.
Connected to trust boundaries are trust levels. Trust levels
stipulate the amount of trust required to access a portion of
the system.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>C. Identifying Threats to the EHS</title>
      <p>Threats may result from the activities of legitimate users
of a system (insiders) who are authenticated and authorized
to use the services provided by the system or unauthorized
users (outsiders). Threats are often born out of weaknesses
in design, implementation or configuration and is now a
course for concern to all who use information management
systems for their various operations. All the information
gathered from detection of access points will help to detect
potential threats from the access points. The goal of an
adversary, their capabilities and what the risk they pose are
all referred to as threats. Threats are identified by a
systematic review of assets and access point to create a
premise as regards breaches of the CIA of the information
system which in this case is the EHS. This is done using the
STRIDE model created by Microsoft for considering threats
to system security and provides a mnemonic for security
threats classification in six different categories described
below;




</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Spoofing – Spoofing is a situation where a person or</title>
        <p>program masquerades successfully as an
unsuspecting individual to gain an unauthorized
access to otherwise information by falsifying data to
get illegitimate advantage.</p>
        <p>Tampering – Tampering involves changing data for
the purpose of mounting an attack. This may be done
by an insider or an outsider. The insider who has
access to certain privileged information may change
them for malicious reasons or in order to gain access
to information which they do not have clearance to
view officially.</p>
        <p>Repudiation – If a system user, legitimate or
otherwise, is capable of denying the claim that they
have carried out a certain transaction detected in the
system, the system is said to be lacking the
nonrepudiation characteristic of a secured system.
Without any adequate logging of activities on
systems and auditing, it is difficult to prove that a
repudiation attacks has occurred.</p>
        <p>Information disclosure – Information disclosure
attacks occur when confidential information is
leaked to a user who does not have authorization to
access such information.</p>
        <p>Denial of service This attack occurs when there is
an attempt to make a machine, a system or resource
offered by a network unavailable to those who are
intended to use it This could be a temporarily or
indefinitely suspension or interruption of services of
a host connected to an enterprise network or the
Internet.</p>
        <p>Elevation of privilege – Elevation of privileges
occurs if a user finds a way to gain access beyond
that which there are legitimately unauthorized to
access and begin to use resources and services
reserved for higher privilege users.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>D. Rating Identified Threats</title>
      <p>A simple High, Medium, or Low scale may be used to
rate threats. A threat rated as High, means that threat poses a
significant amount of risk to the application and needs to be
resolved by implementing appropriate counter measures as
soon as possible. If a threat is identified as Medium, it also
need to be addressed, but with less urgency as will be
required for a High-risk threat. Low risk threats may be
ignored depending on how much cost and effort it may
require to address the threat.</p>
      <p>The problem posed by a simplistic rating system as
described above is that risk assessment team members or
security experts usually will not agree on ratings. To resolve
this, a systematic way of determining what the impact of a
security threat really entails is required. Microsoft’s DREAD
model is used to calculate risk. By using the DREAD model,
you arrive at the risk rating for a given threat by asking the
following questions:
 Damage Potential – How extensive is the damage
potential if a vulnerability is exploited?
 Reproducibility – How easy is it to repeat the attack?
 Exploitability – How easy is it to launch an attack?
 Affected Users – As a rough percentage, how many
users are potentially affected by the attack?
 Discoverability – How effortless is it to find the
vulnerability?</p>
      <p>DREAD is an acronym formed from the first letter of
each class enumerated above. The risks are still rated as High
medium and low risks but over the DREAD scheme with
corresponding values of 3, 2, 1 respectively and zero (0) if
the threat possesses no risk at all. Table 1 shows the threat
rating scheme.</p>
      <p>After threats are identified using the STRIDE model,
there are rated using DREAD risk assessment model which
is a categorizing scheme to qualify, analyze and prioritize the
quantity of risk presented by assessed threat. The DREAD
algorithm, shown below, is used to compute a risk value,
which is an average of all five categories.</p>
      <p>Risk_DREAD = (DAMAGE + REPRODUCIBILITY
+ EXPLOITABILITY + AFFECTED USERS +
DISCOVERABILITY) / 5</p>
      <p>In Figure 2, a threat model for an EHS is illustrated. It
shows the database as a central asset that all the users
interact with by using the various interfaces available to
them via a browser based. Using the DREAD model, we
ranked the threats in terms of the damage potential,
reproducibility of the attack, how easy it is for malicious
individuals to exploit, affected users and how discoverable
the loop hole in the system is. The threats in the model above
are discussed in the order of increasing potential for
discoverability, exploitation and reproducibility. The threat
with the easiest discoverability is that inherent in the
patients’ usage of the system. A Doctors login access details
may be spoofed by eavesdroppers or by simple social
engineering practices such as shoulder surfing, Pretexting,
Phishing etc. When this happens, access may fall into an
unauthorized person who can then view privileged or private
information of the all patients and with the right technical
knowledge, the cracker may even prevent other users from
login into the system. This access may also be disclosed by
the doctors themselves to friends or family members. This
threat is the most discoverable, exploited and repeated
several usages of the exploit if counter measures are not
implemented. The next point of threat is from nurse’s
interaction with the EHS. The threats posed are that of
repudiation, information disclosure, privilege elevation and
tampering. The ability of a system user to perform an action,
malicious or otherwise and successfully deny their
involvement in such action which may include but not
limited to information disclosure to unauthorized personnel
or tampering with patient’s medical records is referred to as
repudiation. The same scenario will apply to all the actors
interacting with the EHS. However, in order of increasing
discoverability, the last being the hardest to discover but
most threatening, it proceeds from the Nurses station to the
Doctors access level, the pharmacists access level, the lab
technician and the database where all data created and used
by all the actors are store and retrieve for decision making
purposes. Here, (the Database) the inherent threat is denial of
service (DoS) where the attacker attempts to exhaust the
resources available to the network, application or service so
that real users cannot gain access and tampering for
malicious exploits.
The counter measures required to mitigate the threats in
the model in Figure 2 are highlighted in Figure 4. The
countermeasures are classified into two groups. The first
group of countermeasures is best suited to the actors that use
the database asset while the other set of countermeasure
apply to the database itself.</p>
      <p>IV.</p>
      <p>RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS</p>
      <p>Figure 2 is the threats identified in an EHS using the
STRIDE threats modelling tool.</p>
      <p>All possible threats associated with user authentication
and authorization using login credentials that may allow
illegitimate users gain unauthorized access to the system are
defined. The major sources of such threats include losing,
sharing or theft of user identity, login credentials, and
authentication of patient medical or communication devices.
Sharing of sensitive user access credentials may result in
misuse, altering of sensitive patient data, or private
information divulgence, among others.</p>
      <p>Potential damage posed by this threats are computed
using the DREAD risk rating scheme in Table 1 and
subsequently categorized as low (0 – 6), medium (7 – 11) or
high (12 – 15), according to the impact the threat possesses
to the EHS as calculated in Table 2. For example, if a
patient's login credentials fall into the hand of an attacker due
to theft or sharing; the impact would be low, because the
vulnerability is only present for a single patient; but if on the
hand a health care professional say an administrator of the
system with a high trust boundary fall into the hand of a
malicious user, the impact will be very high, because the
impact of such a vulnerability may affect more than one
patient, possibly all the patients records on the server may be
compromised or configurations altered by the assailant.
Since authentication of communicating device is very
essential, when a patient's communication device wants to
exchange information with the patient's medical device, the
two devices must authenticate each other, and ensure that
they are what/who they claim to be. Similarly, when the
patient's communication device intends to send or receive
data from the EHS, both devices must carry out mutual
authentication to ensure trust between the receiving and
sending devices as well as the data being transmitted.</p>
      <p>To assign risk rating values to the threats as shown on
Table 2 each category of rating in the DREAD risk model
was used to evaluate each threat on Figure 2. The threats
generated are accompanied with description for which a
DREAD value is computed on the premise discussed from
the cause and effect of the threat. The process was iterated
for a couple of the threats to obtain ratings which were used
to compute the risk value.</p>
      <p>Risk_DREAD may now be calculated from Table 2 as:
Risk_DREAD = (43+43+41+48+42) / 5 = 217/5 = 43.4
V. COUNTERMEASURES TO IDENTIFIED THREATS IN THE</p>
      <p>MODEL</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>A. User Authentication – RFID or BIOMETRICS</title>
      <p>User authentication plays a vital role in many
applications that require user interaction with data and
services. Several remote user authentication schemes and
their enhancements was proposed by [4] to improve the
security flaws in other schemes. The security of the
traditional identity-based remote user authentication schemes
is based on the passwords. Simple passwords however, are
easy to break by simple dictionary search attacks. To resolve
such problem, biometric-based user authentication schemes
are better alternatives since such authentications are more
secure and reliable than traditional password-based
authentication schemes. The advantages of using biometric
keys (for example palm-prints, faces, fingerprints, irises,
hand geometry, etc.) are:
 Biometric keys cannot be lost
 Biometric keys cannot be forgotten.
 Biometric keys are exceptionally hard to forge.
 Biometric keys are difficult to copy or share.</p>
      <p>TABLE SHOWING EHS THREATS RATED WITH DREAD
legal party to replay the fake messages for further
deceptions.</p>
      <p>Withstand man-in-the-middle attacks where attacker
intercept the messages during transmissions and can
change or delete or modify the contents of the
messages delivered to the intended recipients.</p>
      <p>
        A couple of remote user authentication schemes that use
smart cards have been proposed in the literatures [3] [6]. A
self-certified user authentication scheme for next generation
wireless network, which relies on the public-key
cryptosystem was proposed as an efficient biometric-based
remote user authentication scheme using smart card in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">13</xref>
        ].
If the flaws highlighted in [7] are resolved, it will serve as a
means for a secure user authentication system with RFID
enabled smart cards for any system and not just on an EHS.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>B. User Authorisation and Seperation of Duties</title>
      <p>This can be achieved through programming logic to
ensure that each user group only access the parts of the
systems that they are authorized to access and use the
functions that are specific to that user group without any
access to tasks and functions that are for other user groups.
Separation of duties is a classic security method to manage
conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest, and
fraud as shown in Figure 4. It restricts as much as possible
the amount of power held by any one individual by ensuring
that each user group only performs read and write operations
on data that pertains to it. It puts a barrier in place to prevent
fraud that may be perpetrated by adversaries. Fraud is more
likely to occurs when there is a collusion in the functions
performed by a user group with the functions of a different
user group.</p>
      <sec id="sec-7-1">
        <title>Biometric keys cannot be easily guessed as compared to low-entropy passwords. Biometrics of someone’s not easy to break than others.</title>
        <p>If biometric authentication is implemented on the EHS,
the following attacks will be prevented.</p>
        <p> Withstand masquerade attacks where an adversary
may try to masquerade as a legitimate user to
communicate with a valid system or masquerade as a
valid system in order to communicate with legal
users.
 Withstand replay attacks that occur when an attacker
tries to hold up the messages between two
communicating parties and then impersonate other</p>
        <p>CONCLUSION</p>
        <p>This paper proposes a threat model for an Electronic
health systems (EHS) that captures the possible attacks that
may be carried out against an EHS. The STRIDE threat
model was used to identify potential threats which were then
ranked based on the security risk posed using a DREAD
threat-risk ranking model. Possible countermeasures to
authentication and authorization control threats on the
system were discussed. Our future research work will focus
on Design and development of scalable security controls and
countermeasures to the various threats identified in this
paper. We will also explore the digital forensic techniques
that could be used at different parts of the system when a
successful attack is carried out and policies that need to be
put in place to ensure that the occurrences of attack are
minimized.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          Vol:
          <volume>2</volume>
          , No:
          <issue>4</issue>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          , p.
          <fpage>7</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>D. J. Brailer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"</article-title>
          <source>Economic Perspectives on Health Information Technology," Business Economics</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>40</volume>
          , p.
          <fpage>8</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Alshehri</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Mishra</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Raj</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Insider threat mitigation and access control in healthcare systems,"</article-title>
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>O. M. Olaniyi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Folorunso</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Omotosho</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Israel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Securing Digitized Campus Clinical Healthcare Delivery System," presented at the 1st</article-title>
          <source>International Conference on Applied Information Technology</source>
          ,
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Garg</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Brewer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Telemedicine security: a systematic review,"</article-title>
          <source>Journal of diabetes science and technology</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>5</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>768</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>777</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Hardy</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Beyond Continuous Monitoring: Threat Modeling for Real-time Response,"</article-title>
          <source>SANS Institute</source>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Techtarget</surname>
          </string-name>
          , "Definition of Threat Modeling," ed,
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Microsoft.</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          , 8/11). Chapter 3 -
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Threat</given-names>
            <surname>Modeling</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Available: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff648644.aspx
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Myagmar</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. J.</given-names>
            <surname>Lee</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Yurcik</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Threat modeling as a basis for security requirements," in Symposium on requirements engineering for information security</article-title>
          (SREIS),
          <year>2005</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>8</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Kumar</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B. K.</given-names>
            <surname>Tripathi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Modelling of Threat Evaluation for Dynamic Targets Using Bayesian Network Approach,"</article-title>
          <source>Procedia Technology</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>24</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1268</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1275</lpage>
          , //
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Adebisi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Oladosu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Busari</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y. V.</given-names>
            <surname>Oyewola</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Design and Implementation of Hospital Management System,"</article-title>
          <source>International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>5</volume>
          ,
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Anand</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Ryoo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Kim</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Kim</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Threat Assessment in the Cloud Environment: A Quantitative Approach for Security Pattern Selection,"</article-title>
          <source>in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication</source>
          ,
          <year>2016</year>
          , p.
          <fpage>5</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Ruffy</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Hommel</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>F. von Eye</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"A STRIDE-based Security Architecture for Software-Defined Networking,"</article-title>
          <source>ICN</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          , p.
          <fpage>107</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Ali</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Kelly</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Data security and threat modeling for smart city infrastructure," in Cyber Security of Smart Cities, Industrial Control System</article-title>
          and
          <source>Communications (SSIC)</source>
          , 2015 International Conference on,
          <year>2015</year>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>6</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Singhal</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Banati</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Fuzzy Logic Approach for Threat Prioritization in Agile Security Framework using DREAD Model,"</article-title>
          <source>arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6836</source>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Abomhara</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Gerdes</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Køien</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"A STRIDE-Based Threat Model for Telehealth Systems," Norsk informasjonssikkerhetskonferanse (NISK)</article-title>
          ,
          <source>vol. 8</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>82</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>96</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>