The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Multi-authority security framework for scalable EHR systems
Abstract
Electronic health record (EHR) systems can be operated in a large-scale distributed environment, such as cloud computing, which might have to be managed by multiple authorities who control the access to patient records. In this way, a large amount of data from patients can be hosted on a large-scale distributed system. Unfortunately, the security of such systems is usually inadequate, which results in the hindrance of the EHR systems adoption in practice. Attribute-based systems have been a popular choice that could provide a flexible and reliable access control to EHR databases, which are usually managed by a single authority, who is responsible for setting up the system's policy. In a large-scale distributed system, it might be necessary to have multiple authorities, who can handle users located in different areas. Nevertheless, one of the challenges is how to enable multiple authorities with a single access policy. In this paper, we provide a sound solution to this issue. Our EHR system provides a secure environment for EHR users to use the system conveniently and provide the flexibility and scalability.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Such systems are inadequate for practical use as they have security risks because of their reliance on a single trusted authority.
“It has been pointed out that such systems are inadequate for practical use as they have security risks because of their reliance on a single trusted authority [40].”
From Tamper-Resistant Mobile Health Using Blockchain Technology. (2017) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tamper-Resistant Mobile Health Using Blockchain Technology.
Ichikawa, D., Kashiyama, M., & Ueno, T. (2017) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.7938 · Cited by 298
“It has been pointed out that such systems are inadequate for practical use as they have security risks because of their reliance on a single trusted authority [40].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Rezaeibagha, F., Mu, Y., Susilo, W., & Win, K. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Wollongong (AU)
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Engineering and Informatics
- Publisher
- Inderscience Publishers
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 390
- ISSN
- 1755-0653 (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0661
- OpenAlex
- W2525028873
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 1.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Engineering and Informatics (publishedVersion)
- Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Cryptography and Data Security
- Keywords
- electronic health records, multi-authority access control, attribute-based access control, distributed systems, cloud computing, patient data security, scalability, healthcare information security
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review