A Security Analysis Of Cyber-Physical Systems Architecture For Healthcare 

Recommendations for future work: Here the author explained about the architectural analysis is needed to extend the working process of medical devices for the health care. Implanted medical devices for example pacemakers and artificial pancreases and complex medical equipment such as CT scanners and surgical robotics each may require a different set of actors and interactions with a CPS. Ensuring that the architecture is able to work with a wide variety of equipment types while maintaining the security of patient information is crucial to the eventual implementation of such a system.

The key architectural requirements such as security and safety relevant for EHealth-Based CPS in this work. Furthermore, work can be done regarding to improve security of Cyber Physical System(CPS) by reducing the problems and completion delays. Weaknesses as reported by the authors: There are limit authorized knowledge sources to contributing or requesting information appropriate to their function. Data knowledge sources will exist on the unchanged segment as the blackboard manager and the blackboard database. A successful attack like DDOS type may interrupt communications for the entire CPS. Shortcomings identified by other researchers: Cited by 24 other TPs but not shortcomings are identified by any authors in those TPs. Failings that you have independently identified: This is model mainly needed to meet the security needs for medical devices in health care.

Creating this can be much more challenging. Also security requirement for healthcare facility systems it is also very much difficult to do. What assessment does the TP deserve and provide a justification: a. Has the TP identified & clearly presented a knowledge gap in the subject?

1. TP represented the architectural analysis is needed to extend the working process of medical devices for the health care.
   Has it addressed this gap?
2. Most of them are clearly addressed this gaps with figures and graphs on findings. c. Has it presented the findings clearly?
3. The findings were explained clearly with bold word format. d. Has the TP included the previously identified key references?
4. Some key references were messing in this TP. e. Has it used the key references adequately? 3. Some references were only used properly. Other references were just mentioned as cross references.

Recommendations for future work:

These include transformation of various events into a collective transmittable format. Also network load efficiency is needed to be optimized for the healthcare utilization. Such aspects are important for systematic deployment of the system. Since the gathered data contains the personal healthcare data, therefore necessary security mechanisms must be implied before storage.

Weaknesses as reported by the authors: A layered Fog-Cloud architecture of IoT based remote healthcare monitoring in Smart Office is presented. The proposed model incorporates various aspects of the office environment in terms of different events.

Shortcomings identified by other researchers:

Cited by 21 articles but no shortcomings were identified by any of the authors.

Failings that you have independently identified: for the validation of a system for utility and effectiveness, it can be facing some problems by using online sources to get datasets. By obtaining results, it can be decided that proposed system is highly efficient and effective as long as a proper healthcare service environment. There are different security techniques needed to provided different researchers to protect healthcare data.

What assessment does the TP deserve and provide a justification:

a. Has the TP identified & clearly presented a knowledge gap in the subject?

1. In the TP at user-end, it provides a fog-based computing pattern to create time sensitive results, also makes storage for Fog-Cloud computing model.
   Has it addressed this gap?
2. There is more information on functionalities for Fog Cloud about office healthcare. But for hospital system it is not very much clear.
   Has it presented the findings clearly?
3. Findings were not clearly mentioned in the paper.
   Has the TP included the previously identified key references?
4. All the key references were mentioned at required places for understanding the concept.
   Has it used the key references adequately?
5. Any external concept is clearly understood by digging deeper into the references.