Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 21 references

Cybersecurity and Frequent Cyber Attacks on IoT Devices in Healthcare: Issues and Solutions

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that cyber attacks on healthcare IoT devices are frequent and rising, and that layered defenses are the right response.

desk verdict A readable but evidence-broken survey: the proposed IoT device taxonomy is a useful teaching scaffold, but the unverifiable statistics and unrelated citations sink its central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11250 v1 pith:6SS4HGZ3 submitted 2025-01-20 cs.CR

Zag ElSayed , Ahmed Abdelgawad , Nelly Elsayed This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords CybersecurityIoTHealthcareDevicesAttacksVulnerabilitiesMitigationStrategies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is a review of cybersecurity threats facing Internet of Things (IoT) devices in healthcare. Its central claim is that these devices are attacked frequently and increasingly, citing statistics such as a 45% year-over-year rise in attacks on healthcare organizations and involvement of insecure IoT devices in over 50% of attacks. The authors organize devices into a threat-oriented taxonomy—wearable, implantable, smart medical, ambient, operational, and research—and walk through the attack types that target each class. They argue that a multi-layered combination of device hardening, network segmentation, authentication, staff training, and regulatory compliance can substantially reduce the risk. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as a structured map of the problem space and a checklist of defenses, rather than a new experimental result.

What carries the argument

The central object is the authors' proposed threat-oriented classification of healthcare IoT devices into six classes: wearable, implantable, smart medical, ambient, operational, and research devices. This taxonomy carries the argument by mapping each class to its typical attack vectors—data interception, device hijacking, denial of service, ransomware, and so on—and then to corresponding mitigations, turning the review into a structured risk catalogue. The paper also leans on a set of industry statistics as evidence of attack frequency, and on established security frameworks as the skeleton for its recommendations.

What would settle it

Collect independent, time-stamped records of cyber attacks on healthcare IoT devices—from breach disclosure registries, device vulnerability databases, and hospital incident reports—and check whether year-over-year growth matches the cited rates; a flat or declining trend would contradict the paper's central assertion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a risk landscape: it asserts that the connectivity and data richness that make healthcare IoT valuable also make it a frequent target, and it supports that assertion with industry statistics, including a 45% increase in attacks on healthcare organizations, a 35% rise in denial-of-service attacks, over 50% of attacks involving insecure IoT devices, and 83% of healthcare IoT devices running outdated operating systems. The review then claims that no single measure can address this, and that layered defenses spanning device-level security, network controls, authentication, user awareness, and compliance with healthcare privacy and security regulations are the way to mitigate the risk. The paper also offers a threat-oriented device classification as a tool for reasoning about which attacks apply where.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim of frequent, rising attacks rests on industry statistics quoted in Section IV, yet the listed references do not themselves establish those figures, so the quantitative urgency is not verifiable from the paper's sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Healthcare organizations should treat IoT devices as a distinct attack surface and enforce device-level controls such as secure boot, signed firmware updates, and hardware-backed encryption.
  • Networks should segment IoT traffic from core clinical systems, with micro-segmentation and AI-driven intrusion detection to contain malware spread.
  • Compliance with healthcare privacy and security regulations becomes not just a legal requirement but a substantive part of the security posture.
  • Investment in AI-based and behavior-focused threat detection is justified because attack methods evolve faster than static signatures.
  • IoT manufacturers should adopt security-by-design so that secure boot, authentication, and patch mechanisms exist before devices reach hospitals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's taxonomy could be extended to home-use medical IoT devices, which sit outside hospital perimeters but feed data into clinical workflows, making them a plausible entry point the review does not cover.
  • If the quoted attack rates are accurate, attackers' incentives will increasingly target wearable and implantable devices, because they carry high-value continuous health data and often use weak or default authentication.
  • The layered-defense recommendations could be tested empirically by comparing incident rates across hospitals that have adopted most layers versus those that have not, a comparison the review does not perform.
  • The statistical foundation would be stronger if independent, peer-reviewed incident data, rather than vendor reports, were used to verify the rising-trend claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey-style paper on cybersecurity threats to Internet of Things (IoT) devices in healthcare. It proposes a six-class, threat-oriented taxonomy of healthcare IoT devices (wearables, implantables, smart devices, ambient devices, operational tools, and research-and-development equipment), catalogs attack types per class, presents a set of industry statistics intended to show that attacks on healthcare IoT are frequent and increasing, and reviews mitigation strategies spanning device security, authentication, network segmentation, blockchain, regulatory frameworks, user training, and AI-assisted detection. The central empirical claim is that attacks are frequent and rising, supported by figures such as a 45% yearly increase in attacks on healthcare organizations, more than 50% of attacks involving insecure IoT devices, a 35% increase in DDoS attacks, a 60% year-over-year increase in IoT malware, and 83% of healthcare IoT devices running outdated operating systems. The paper concludes with future research directions centered on AI-driven detection, lightweight cryptography, and quantum-resilient protocols.

Significance. The topic is timely and important, and the paper has two useful organizing contributions: the threat-oriented device taxonomy in §II (Figs. 2-8) is a reasonable framework for discussing healthcare IoT risk, and §V catalogs a broad, mainstream set of mitigation measures including MFA, micro-segmentation, FOTA updates, and SOAR/XDR platforms. Beyond that, the manuscript offers no machine-checked results, no reproducible artifacts, no original data, and no falsifiable predictions of its own; as a survey, its entire value lies in the accuracy and verifiability of its cited evidence. On that basis the paper fails: the headline statistics in §III and §IV are not traceable to any bibliography entry, and a substantial fraction of the 21 references do not support the sentences they are attached to. The paper cannot serve as a reliable synthesis of the literature in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, unnumbered paragraph after §III.C] The central quantitative claim of the paper—that attacks on healthcare IoT devices are frequent and increasing—is not supported by the reference list. The 45% increase in attacks on healthcare organizations is attributed in this paragraph to 'Check Point Research (2025)', but no such entry exists in the 21-item bibliography, and the manuscript's submission date of 20 January 2025 makes the cited source unverifiable. Since this is the only quantitative evidence offered for the paper's core assertion in §III, the claim cannot be checked from the manuscript as submitted.
  2. [§IV] None of the seven headline statistics in §IV is traceable to a bibliography entry: the '2024 Elastic Global Threat Report' (attributed to Cybersecurity Ventures), the HIMSS figure that 47% of healthcare organizations experienced a DDoS attack, the Check Point Research (2022) figure of a 28% increase in man-in-the-middle attacks, the Ponemon Institute (2023) estimate of 15%, the Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 figure of a 60% year-over-year increase in IoT malware, the Symantec figure of 83% of devices on outdated operating systems, and the claim that insecure IoT devices contributed to over 50% of attacks. In addition, the Elastic Global Threat Report is attributed to the wrong organization. The quantitative backbone of the survey is therefore unverifiable and cannot support the conclusion that threats are rising.
  3. [Reference list entries [9], [10], [12], [16], [17], [18], [19]] Numerous bibliography entries are topically unrelated to the claims they are cited to support. [10] and [17], both on arsenic uptake in grasses, support statements about smart medical equipment in §II.C and §III.C; [16], on alternative-medicine journal editing, supports the recommendation for security assessments of implantable devices in §III.B; [18], on mobile health in South Sudan, and [19], on lipohypertrophy and continuous glucose monitoring, support claims about healthcare information systems and hospital operations in §III.C; [9], on developmental neurobiology, supports the description of implantable devices in §II.B; and [12], on job stress, supports the list of asset-tracking and hygiene-monitoring systems in §II.E. Because the citations do not match their contexts, a reader cannot verify any of these statements from the listed sources; this is a systemic evidence-integrity problem, not a local error. Note also that [10] and [17] are duplicate entries.
  4. [Abstract, §I, and §VII] The paper repeatedly describes itself as a comprehensive survey (Abstract; 'comprehensive review' in §I; 'comprehensive literature survey' in §VII), but with only 21 references—several of them duplicates or off-topic—and with no stated search strategy, inclusion criteria, databases used, or temporal coverage, the comprehensiveness claim is unjustified. For a survey whose stated purpose is to highlight the nature and frequency of attacks, the absence of a verifiable evidence base is a load-bearing deficiency, not a stylistic issue.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§II.B] The phrase 'spine cord simulators' should read 'spinal cord stimulators'.
  2. [§II.D and Fig. 6] 'HV AC' should read 'HVAC'.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption 'IoT Breseach and development tools' appears to contain a typographical error; 'Breseach' is likely intended to be 'research'.
  4. [§IV] The phrase 'The 2024 Elastic Global Threat Report report' contains a duplicated word, and the Fig. 9 caption ('A sample statistics...') contains a number-agreement error.
  5. [Fig. 14 caption] 'Security motoring' should read 'security monitoring', and the abbreviation PTP-SOAR is never defined in the text.
  6. [§III.A] 'Mitigating these threats require implementing' should be 'Mitigating these threats requires implementing' for subject-verb agreement.
  7. [Figures 7–15] Several figures appear to reproduce commercial vendor diagrams (e.g., Rishabh, Arm TrustZone, Cisco Duo, Hyperledger Fabric, IoT Core) without source attribution or permission statements; the provenance of these figures should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are external literature assertions and generic recommendations, not derived from the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a literature survey and position paper. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no quantitative model, and no derivation chain whose output could be equivalent to its input by construction. The load-bearing statistics (45% increase in attacks, over 50% of attacks involving insecure IoT devices, 35% DDoS increase, 47% of organizations reporting DDoS, 28% MitM increase, 15% MitM share, 60% malware increase, 83% outdated operating systems) are asserted as external findings attributed to Check Point, Elastic, HIMSS, Ponemon, Unit 42, and Symantec, not computed or derived in this paper. The proposed threat-oriented device classification is an organizing taxonomy rather than a predicted result, and the mitigation strategies are standard security recommendations, not outcomes deduced from the paper's own prior work. There are no self-citations by the authors, no uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' earlier work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The most serious problem is evidentiary: several numbered references do not support the sentences they are attached to (e.g., references on arsenic uptake and alternative-medicine editing), so the factual backbone is hard to verify from the bibliography. That is an evidence-quality or referencing defect, not a circularity defect, because the cited statistics are independent external claims rather than quantities the paper itself constructs. Under the stated rules, the honest finding is no significant circularity, with a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on the reliability of externally cited statistics and on the correspondence between references and the statements they support. Both assumptions fail in multiple instances, so the survey's factual basis is not independently checkable.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The cited third-party security statistics (Check Point, Elastic, HIMSS, Ponemon, Unit 42, Symantec) are accurate and correctly paraphrased.
    The paper's urgency argument in Sections III and IV depends on these numbers; the references provided do not allow verification.
  • domain assumption The bibliographic references correspond to the statements they are attached to.
    Multiple entries (e.g., [10], [16], [19]) are topically unrelated to their contexts, so this assumption is doubtful.
  • domain assumption Standard cybersecurity categories (MitM, DoS, ransomware, firmware exploitation) apply directly to healthcare IoT devices as described.
    Threat descriptions in Section III are qualitative and follow common knowledge rather than evidence specific to each device class.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cybersecurity and Frequent Cyber Attacks on IoT Devices in Healthcare: Issues and Solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SS4HGZ3

@misc{pith2026250111250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cybersecurity and Frequent Cyber Attacks on IoT Devices in Healthcare: Issues and Solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SS4HGZ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11250}
}
read the original abstract

Integrating Internet of Things (IoT) devices in healthcare has revolutionized patient care, offering improved monitoring, diagnostics, and treatment. However, the proliferation of these devices has also introduced significant cybersecurity challenges. This paper reviews the current landscape of cybersecurity threats targeting IoT devices in healthcare, discusses the underlying issues contributing to these vulnerabilities, and explores potential solutions. Additionally, this study offers solutions and suggestions for researchers, agencies, and security specialists to overcome these IoT in healthcare cybersecurity vulnerabilities. A comprehensive literature survey highlights the nature and frequency of cyber attacks, their impact on healthcare systems, and emerging strategies to mitigate these risks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The current popular IoT infrastructure architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Proposed sample of Implanted devices class [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed Threat oriented Healthcare IoT devices classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proposed sample of smart devices class. C. Smart Devices Smart medical equipment encompasses various devices used in clinical settings for diagnostics, treatment, and patient care. Examples include smart infusion pumps, smart beds, automated dispensing systems, EKG mac…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A sample of IoT Breseach and development tools in healthcare. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A sample of an IoT Based hospital assets tracking system by Rishabh® [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A sample statistics of the recent cyberattacks globally and specifically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Arm Trusted Zone layers Example Diagram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Hyperledge Fabric system block diagram - Block Chain based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Authentication steps 1) user accesses services using Entra ID, 2) user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: PTP’s SOAR implementation show case scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Arsenic uptake by two tolerant grass species: Holcus lanatus and agrostis capillaris growing in soils contaminated by historical mining,

    A. Dradrach, A. Karczewska, and K. Szopka, “Arsenic uptake by two tolerant grass species: Holcus lanatus and agrostis capillaris growing in soils contaminated by historical mining,” Plants (Basel) , vol. 9, Aug. 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [17]

    Arsenic uptake by two tolerant grass species: Holcus lanatus and agrostis capillaris growing in soils contaminated by historical mining,

    A. Dradrach, A. Karczewska, and K. Szopka, “Arsenic uptake by two tolerant grass species: Holcus lanatus and agrostis capillaris growing in soils contaminated by historical mining,” Plants, vol. 9, p. 980, Aug. 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [16]

    Word use and semantics in alternative medicine: a survey of editors of medical and related journals,

    K. R. Smith and W. Sampson, “Word use and semantics in alternative medicine: a survey of editors of medical and related journals,” Medscape J Med, vol. 10, p. 125, May 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [18]

    Mr. yugi: mobile health with large potential in south sudan,

    J. Yugi, “Mr. yugi: mobile health with large potential in south sudan,” Mhealth, vol. 2, p. 22, May 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [19]

    Effect of lipohypertrophy on accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes,

    D. J. DeSalvo, D. M. Maahs, L. Messer, R. P. Wadwa, S. Payne, T. T. Ly, and B. A. Buckingham, “Effect of lipohypertrophy on accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes,” Diabetes Care, vol. 38, pp. e166–7, Oct. 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [9]

    Treating the developing versus developed brain: Translating preclinical mouse and human studies,

    B. J. Casey, C. E. Glatt, and F. S. Lee, “Treating the developing versus developed brain: Translating preclinical mouse and human studies,” Neuron, vol. 86, pp. 1358–1368, June 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [12]

    A study of professional job stress among the health care workers during the emergency period,

    M. U. SARADHA and K. Saravanan, “A study of professional job stress among the health care workers during the emergency period,” Journal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences , vol. 10, no. 4S, pp. 1102–1112, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [1]

    A systematic review of iot in healthcare: Applications, techniques, and trends,

    M. Haghi Kashani, M. Madanipour, M. Nikravan, P. Asghari, and E. Mahdipour, “A systematic review of iot in healthcare: Applications, techniques, and trends,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 192, p. 103164, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 21 references
  1. [2]

    A secure framework for remote diagnosis in health care: A high capacity reversible data hiding technique for medical images,

    P. S. Govind and M. Judy, “A secure framework for remote diagnosis in health care: A high capacity reversible data hiding technique for medical images,” Computers and Electrical Engineering , vol. 89, p. 106933, 2021

    2021

  2. [3]

    Trends in cyber-attacks with special focus on health care,

    ´E. Beke, “Trends in cyber-attacks with special focus on health care,” NATIONAL SECURITY REVIEW: PERIODICAL OF THE MILITARY NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 33–44, 2019

    2019

  3. [4]

    Iot healthcare: Design of smart and cost-effective sleep quality monitoring system,

    K. Saleem, I. S. Bajwa, N. Sarwar, W. Anwar, and A. Ashraf, “Iot healthcare: Design of smart and cost-effective sleep quality monitoring system,” Journal of Sensors , vol. 2020, no. 1, p. 8882378, 2020

    2020

  4. [5]

    Healthcare iot: Benefits, vulnerabilities and solutions,

    F. Nausheen and S. H. Begum, “Healthcare iot: Benefits, vulnerabilities and solutions,” in 2018 2nd International Conference on Inventive Systems and Control (ICISC) , pp. 517–522, 2018

    2018

  5. [6]

    Iot-based applications in healthcare devices,

    B. Pradhan, S. Bhattacharyya, and K. Pal, “Iot-based applications in healthcare devices,” Journal of healthcare engineering, vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 6632599, 2021

    2021

  6. [7]

    An intelligent iot based healthcare system using fuzzy neural networks,

    K. Hameed, I. S. Bajwa, S. Ramzan, W. Anwar, and A. Khan, “An intelligent iot based healthcare system using fuzzy neural networks,” Scientific programming, vol. 2020, no. 1, p. 8836927, 2020

    2020

  7. [8]

    The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers,

    L. Piwek, D. A. Ellis, S. Andrews, and A. Joinson, “The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers,” PLoS medicine, vol. 13, no. 2, p. e1001953, 2016

    2016

  8. [11]

    Iot and artificial intelligence implementations for remote healthcare monitoring systems: A survey,

    M. Alshamrani, “Iot and artificial intelligence implementations for remote healthcare monitoring systems: A survey,” Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 4687– 4701, 2022

    2022

  9. [13]

    Challenges encountered and lessons learned during a trial of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system,

    J. M. Boyce, T. Cooper, J. Yin, F.-Y . Li, and J. W. Arbogast, “Challenges encountered and lessons learned during a trial of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system,” American journal of infection control , vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1443–1448, 2019

    2019

  10. [14]

    Internet of things (iot): A review of its enabling technologies in healthcare applications, standards protocols, security, and market opportunities,

    M. N. Bhuiyan, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Billah, and D. Saha, “Internet of things (iot): A review of its enabling technologies in healthcare applications, standards protocols, security, and market opportunities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 13, pp. 10474–10498, 2021

    2021

  11. [15]

    Ten years of cybersecurity governance, risk and com- pliance: a bibliometric examination of research themes, trends, and influencers.,

    R. Dwivedi, “Ten years of cybersecurity governance, risk and com- pliance: a bibliometric examination of research themes, trends, and influencers.,” Issues in Information Systems , vol. 24, no. 3, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    A review of security standards and frameworks for iot-based smart environments,

    N. M. Karie, N. M. Sahri, W. Yang, C. Valli, and V . R. Kebande, “A review of security standards and frameworks for iot-based smart environments,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 121975–121995, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Analysis of IoT security challenges and its solutions using artificial intelligence,

    T. Mazhar, D. B. Talpur, T. A. Shloul, Y . Y . Ghadi, I. Haq, I. Ullah, K. Ouahada, and H. Hamam, “Analysis of IoT security challenges and its solutions using artificial intelligence,” Brain Sci., vol. 13, p. 683, Apr. 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.